Abanpredease Christology: A Christological Interpretation of Dormaahene’s Chieftaincy Appellations

The centrality of the person and works of Jesus Christ in Christianity cannot be denied. In relation to his works, Christ holds three offices simultaneously; namely, those of king, priest and prophet. A proper understanding of African traditional kingship may facilitate the African Christian understanding of the kingship of Christ and in the process, give the African audience a contextual expression of the Christian faith. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how African Christians can appreciate the kingship of Christ based on their understanding of the traditional chieftaincy institution. To this end, the paper examines relevant aspects of the Dormaa kingdom of Ghana—particularly the Dormaahene’s chieftaincy appellations—from a Christological perspective. The paper used a literature-based research methodology to interpret the appellations Ɔsagyefoɔ and Ɔseadeɛyɔ as Christological titles and then linked them to Ahobammɔ Christology—that is, the protection that Christ offers believers. The main thesis of the paper is that the chieftaincy appellations of the Dormaahene have rich Christology which when developed and promoted from an Akan Christian perspective, will catalyze the decolonization and contextualization of Christianity in Africa. The paper contributes to the Christianization of African chieftaincy institutions. The findings from the paper demand that traditional rulers exercise their authority in accordance with God’s purpose and will for their kingdoms, noting that only God is the Supreme Ruler.


INTRODUCTION
This paper examines Christological truths embedded in the appellations of one of the Akan traditional rulers. It is therefore important, to begin with, an overview of the chieftaincy institution in Ghana, particularly among the Akan people. The chieftaincy institution is one of the oldest institutions in Ghana. This institution plays a very important role in national development. The Chieftaincy Act 795 defines a chief as "a person who, hailing from the appropriate family and lineage, has been validly nominated, elected or selected and enstooled, enskinned or installed as a Chief or Queen mother in accordance with the relevant customary law and usage." 1 This definition underscores that the office of the chief is ordained by tradition. Traditionally, the 1 power to enskin or enstool or dis-enskin or destool a chief resides in the hands of the community over which the chief is to rule; no external interference is allowed.
The origin of the chieftaincy institution is difficult to trace. However, oral traditions trace the origin of chieftaincy to a point in time "when a group of people settled at a particular place, began to structure their society and then thought it prudent to nominate or elect someone who will be their leader." 2 The choice was made based on factors such as stature, ability to speak in public, and ability to lead the people to war among others. With time, the institution became well-structured through the creation of stools and skins as symbols of kingship and authority. 3 Before colonialism, there was no president of the Gold Coast (now Ghana); there were no parliamentarians. The nation was governed by traditional leaders who ruled their respective traditional areas together with their traditional councils. In those days, judicial, legislative, executive and administrative powers were exercised only by chiefs or their appointed representatives. The introduction of Western democracy by colonial masters, however, reduced the authority of traditional leaders-mainly to cultural matters-due to the central government system and indirect system of rule. However, Ghanaians hold their traditional leaders in high esteem and chiefs continue to be the embodiment of the culture and customs of the people. Ghana is, however, not a monarchical state like Brunei Darussalam, Lesotho, Malaysia, Swaziland and Tonga which have national monarchies.
The chief does not rule alone; he rules with a council (atena-nkonwa, those sit in council [with the chief]). The need to make decisions with others is expressed in the Akan saying ti korɔ nkɔ agyina (two heads are better than one). The Akan chieftaincy institution is hierarchical as expressed in the saying ahenfo kyiniyɛ, bi deda bi akyi (the umbrellas of chiefs are not of the same value). The structure of the Akan chieftaincy institution comprises the paramount chief, divisional chiefs, and sub-divisional chiefs. The chieftaincy institution also includes the queen mother, hemaa, who is the most important person after the paramount chief. The divisional chiefs in the Akan setup include: Adɔntenhene (the vanguard), Krontihene (who is second-in-command after the paramount chief), Nifahene (the right-wing), Benkumhene (the left-wing), and Kyidɔmhene (the rear guard). Others are: the Abakomahene (the head of the royal family), the Gyaasehene (head of those responsible for household matters of the chief), Sanaahene (the head of treasury of the state), Sumankwahene (the head of those responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of the chief), and Banmuhene (the head of those responsible for the burial of the chief).
The paramount chief, manhene (from mane --traditional state, and hene --chief or king) is the leader, owner and highest authority in a given traditional area. The divisional chiefs swear an oath of allegiance to the paramount chief. Chiefs are intermediaries between the dead and the living. They hold a sacred office and for this reason, they are to be regarded as sacred people. The chief has high reputation and his office comes with some taboos.
A chief is not supposed to walk bare-footed. If he does that and his feet touch the ground, some misfortune will befall not only him but the community at large. He is not supposed to strike anybody nor should he be struck. If this happens the ancestors will bring misfortune upon the person who struck the chief and vice versa. He is not supposed to walk bare-footed lest he stumbles. If he should stumble, a calamity or a misfortune will befall not only him but the community at large. The calamity or misfortune can only be averted through sacrifice(s). He is not supposed to eat the food of a woman during her menstrual period or greet her. 4 also have appellations. Most of these appellations allude to the military prowess of the chief/king. Here are a few of such appellations: Ɔsabarima (warrior), Ɔsagyefoɔ (Deliverer in time of war), Ɔseadeɛyɔ (One who delivers on his (war) promises), Otumfoɔ (the powerful one), Ɔsahene (War captain), and Ɔdeneho (the sovereign one). Chieftaincy titles and appellations are usually mentioned before the stool name of the chief. This paper explores how the kingship of Christ is revealed in the appellations of the Dormaahene. To place the discussions in the proper historical and cultural context, the next section outlines the history of the Dormaa people.
From Bomaa, the Dormaa people moved to places such as Abesim (a community abounding in colanuts, bese) and Chiraa ("yɛnnkyɛre ha", "we shall not live here for long") and went on until they reached their present location (originally Wam Pamu). The Dormaa-Ahenkro community was founded by Queen Kosua Nsuaa I in about 1880 when she acted both as the king and queen of Dormaa. Later, Nana Agyeman Badu I, built a magnificent palace and named it "Abanpredease Palace" in memory of the exodus of the Dormaa people from Akwamu to their present location.
Presently, the Dormaa Kingdom is one of the influential traditional kingdoms in Ghana. 14 It comprises over two hundred cities, towns and villages located in the Dormaa East, Dormaa West, Tano North (Bomaa), Dormaa Municipality, Sunyani Municipality (Abesim) and Sunyani West Municipality (Chiraa). 15 The overlord of the Dormaa state bears the chieftaincy title "Dormaahene" and has the appellations "Ɔsagyefoɔ" and "Ɔseadeɛyɔ." The present leader of the Dormaa kingdom is His Royal Majesty Ɔsagyefoɔ Ɔseadeɛyɔ Ɔbenfo 16 Nana Agyeman Badu II-which can be broken into the traditional/chieftaincy title (Dormaahene), the appellations (Ɔsagyefoɔ Ɔseadeɛyɔ), academic title (Ɔbenfo), the stool name (Nana Agyeman Badu (II)). The Dormaahene is the piesie (first-born) of the Aduana clan. 17 The appellations "Ɔsagyefoɔ" and "Ɔseadeɛyɔ" are fully pregnant with Christological ideas, Christology being the study of the person and works of Christ. The picture below shows the royal occupant of the Dormaa traditional stool.

His Royal Majesty Ɔsagyefoɔ Ɔseadeɛyɔ Ɔbenfo Nana Agyemang Badu II
14 The question of whether Ghana has traditional kingdoms and kings will be consider later in the paper. 15 Anane-Agyei, 183. 16 The present Dormaahene, like his predecessor, holds a doctoral degree (PhD) and that accounts for "Ɔbenfoɔ." It must however be noted that, traditionally the chieftaincy appellation supercedes any academic title. Therefore, though Nana must be commended for attaining this academic feat, he did not become the Dormaahene because of his academic achievements. Again, the Dormaahene could have fulfilled his mandate as a traditional ruler without a doctoral degree.

17
Anane-Agyei, Ghana's Brong-Ahafo Region, 183. Aduana being the first of the eight Akan clans that were given life after God created the earth.

The Dormaahene: A King or Chief?
For some time now people have questioned the legitimacy of referring to some Ghanaian traditional rulers as kings. Therefore, the question as to whether the Dormaahene (and by extension, some other prominent traditional rulers) should be regarded as a king or chief needs attention at this point. In The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, the word "king" is defined as "a supreme ruler, sovereign over a nation or a territory, of higher rank than any other secular ruler except an emperor, to whom a king may be subject." 18 It is further noted that kingship is predominantly (though not exclusively) hereditary and usually takes the form of a monarchy, 19 a monarchy being "a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication." 20 The concept of monarchy has to do more with the rule over a country than just a part of it. The Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary defines a king as "a man who rules a country because he has been born into a family which by tradition or law has the right to rule, or the title given to such a man." 21 It also defines a kingdom as "a country ruled by a king or queen." 22 The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines a king as one who "rules a country because he is from a royal family." 23 It also defines a kingdom as "a country ruled by a king or a queen." To summarize the term "king" usually refers to the ruler of a country, appointed from a royal family to rule till death or till abdication. The term "chief", on the other hand, refers to a leader or ruler of a tribe. 24 A tribe is "a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader." 25 A chief is a leader of an entire tribe no matter how large or small the tribe may be. The subordinates of a chief are known as sub-chiefs or chieftains.
Based on the foregoing, one may argue that there is no king in Ghana because the country is not a monarchy-Ghana is not ruled by a king or a queen. This is true even from time immemorial in that there is no historical record that Gold Coast was ever ruled by a single king or queen. Rather, history points to the fact that Gold Coast consisted of several traditional areas ruled by different traditional leaders. Most of these leaders were chiefs ruling their tribes. No historical account holds that Gold Coast was once a monarchy or kingdom. Therefore, strictly speaking, the only way a particular traditional ruler can be classified as a king is to have all other tribes in Ghana under his rule or to declare his geographical area as a country and then constitute a monarch.
While the conclusion above is valid based on the linguistic analysis of the English words "king" and "chief", the definitions of the Akan term hene (or ɔhene) and related terms also need consideration. The Twi-English/English-Twi Dictionary defines hene as "chief, monarch, king." 26 Johann Gottlieb Christaller defines "hene" (plural: ahemfo) as "king, prince, chief." 27 Christaller further notes that the term ahenkro is used for the town of a king. In Akan, nana is synonymous with a chief, a grandparent and even a deity.
From the dictionary meaning of the term hene, it seems that from the Akan socio-cultural perspective, a traditional leader may be considered as a chief, monarch or king depending on the nature and influence of the person's rule and whether or not his people recognize him as such. The nature and influence of the Dormaahene's rule qualify him as a "king" who rules the Dormaa "kingdom" with its capital Dormaa-Ahenkro. The word "Ahenkro" in the name "Dormaa-Ahenkro" underscores that right from the beginning of their settlement in the Wam Pamu area, the Dormaa people recognized their leader as king. This argument is supported by Christaller's point that the word ahenkro is a reference to the capital of a king. 28 It is important to add that the same word, ahenkro, also applies to the capital of a district, region or country. However, at the time that the Dormaa people were naming their capital Dormaa-Ahenkro, the Dormaa town was neither a district, municipal nor regional capital. The people gave the town that name because they recognized their leader as king. The Dormaahene is highly recognized and esteemed both by his subjects and other people in and outside Ghana. The Dormaa people who are his primary subjects recognize him as their king and this fact should not be denied. Apart from he not ruling over a country, the Dormaahene has all it takes to define a king. To argue that the Dormaahene cannot be regarded as a king because he does not rule the whole country is valid; yet, it also means (as has been stated earlier) that no Ghanaian traditional ruler can be regarded as a king (in the strict sense of the word). Having said this, the paper refers to the Dormaahene as a king with the idea that he is considered as such by his people and has what it takes to be king from an Akan socio-cultural perspective.

Abanpredease Christology
Earlier, it was noted that Abanpredease is the official palace of the Dormaahene. Of the many aspects of the Dormaa Kingdom that can be studied Christologically, this paper focuses only on the Christological value of the appellations of the royal occupant of the Abanpredease Palace. The expression "Abanpredease Christology" refers to the Christological thoughts expressed in the Dormaa chieftaincy institution with the Abanpredease Palace as the official seat of the Dormaahene. "Abanpredease Christology" may also be considered as Christ of the Abanpredease Palace. A section of the Abanpredease Palace is shown below.

A Section of the Great Abanpredease Palace, Dormaa-Ahenkro 29
As noted earlier, the Dormaahene takes the appellations Ɔsagyefoɔ and Ɔseadeɛyɔ before adding his "stool name." These appellations Ɔsagyefoɔ and Ɔseadeɛyɔ are cherished and sacred chieftaincy appellations, the highest of all appellations in the Dormaa Kingdom. The Dormaa Kingdom transcends the Bono Region (where a majority of the Dormaa people are located). It is important to note that the Dormaahene is among the few kings/chiefs with more than one appellation. Most kings/chiefs of other tribes have only one appellation. The Berekumhene, for example, takes the appellation "Dasebrɛ." Perhaps, two appellations are used for Dormaahene in order to fully capture the essence of the might and military prowess of the Dormaahene. With this background, the following section explores how the appellations Ɔsagyefoɔ and Ɔseadeɛyɔ express the kingship of Christ and how this understanding should inform African chieftaincy institutions within the context of Christianity.

Ɔsagyefoɔ Christology
The expression "Ɔsagyefoɔ Christology" refers to the Christological thoughts expressed by the appellation Ɔsagyefoɔ. The Ɔsagyefoɔ motif embedded in the first prophecy about the Messiah is considered below.

Ɔsagyefoɔ Christology and the protoeuangelion
During the installation of the king, he swears an oath of allegiance indicating that he will work for the interest of his people at all times (be it morning, afternoon, evening, midnight or dawn). The people also promise to support the king. The oath sworn by the king means that he will do all he can to maintain the sovereignty of his kingdom and for that matter, his people. In the olden days, ethnic and tribal wars were common. One of the most important things that a king was expected to do for his people was to protect them against attacks. Kings were therefore expected to have military skills.
One of the appellations of the Dormaahene is Ɔsagyefoɔ (lit. Deliverer in time of war). The word Ɔsagyefoɔ comes from two Akan words sa or ɔsa (war) and gyefoɔ (deliverer). During wars, people look up to their leaders to deliver them from their enemies. The appellation Ɔsagyefoɔ underlines the Dormaahene's military prowess-his ability to gye (save) his people in times of sa (war). The Dormaa people defeated many states on their way from Akwamu to Wam Pamu. The military prowess of the Dormaahene has a typological relationship with the military prowess of Jesus Christ. In other words, the military might of the Dormaahene is a typology of the military might of Jesus Christ. To understand this point, the paper now considers how the first prophecy about the Messiah underscores his Ɔsagyefoɔ nature.
The biblical account of Christ as a warrior King is found in the early chapters of the book of Genesis. After God created all things, he placed the first human pair, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and instructed them to cultivate and keep it (Gen. 2:15). God commanded them not to eat from a certain tree that was in the middle of the Garden, though they could eat from all other trees in the Garden. In Genesis 3 one finds the account of the fall of Adam and Eve through the tempter's deception. This sin, which is the first sin in the history of humanity, brought many consequences to the universe. God cursed the ground and cursed the serpent who acted as an instrument for Satan (Rev. 12:9), among others. The entrance of sin into the human world necessitated the coming of God's Messiah into the world to take the penalty of sin.
The first prophecy about the Messiah presents him as a warrior king (Gen. 3:15). In this text, God hints that Satan's dominion (assumed through the fall of humanity) will be destroyed through the seed of the woman who will crush Satan's head. 30 The head-crushing prophecy (also referred to as the protoeuangelion, first gospel or "mother promise") serves as the foundation for the messianic expectation throughout the Old Testament. 31 The warfare implications of the head-crushing metaphor underscore that the establishment of the messianic kingdom will involve a final victory over the serpent in a head-crushing conflict. 32 Furthermore, the assertion that the head-crushing Messiah comes as the seed of the woman theologically points to his conception by a virgin (Matt 1:18-25). The cosmic conflict between rival kingdoms is narrowed to a skirmish of the seed of the woman versus the seed of the serpent (Rev 12:4-6). 33 The fulfillment of God's promise of a head-crushing seed of the woman who comes to destroy the parasitic dominion of the serpent is seen in the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Warfare is central to the worldview of the New Testament (first-century Greco-Roman) world. 34 The New Testament idea of warfare centers on the struggle between God's kingdom and Satan's kingdom. Christ is presented as a warrior king who leads God's kingdom to war against Satan. Jews of Jesus' day, however, expected a political Messiah who would give them freedom from Roman dominion. Therefore, "the nature, timing, purpose, and results of his [Christ's] warrior kingship are different from the reigning anticipation of the time period." 35 Christ transformed the meaning and significance of warfare throughout his life and ministry. 36 Paul makes it clear that Christ is the fulfilment of the protoeuangelion. Christ is the seed of the woman who came to crush the head of the serpent, for Paul says, "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning "one person, who is Christ" (Gal. 3:16 NIV cf. 1 John 3:8). That the head-crushing Messiah in the protoeuangelion is Ɔsagyefoɔ Kristo (Christ, the Deliverer) is underlined in the atoning sacrifice offered on the cross. The next section discusses this issue.

Ɔsagyefoɔ Christology and the atonement
The head-crushing event was climaxed on the cross in the atonement. Phillip Ross Bethancourt argues that Christ's victory in the head-crushing conflict is anticipated by the Passion Week through its warfare-oriented scenes, accomplished by the crucifixion, declared by the resurrection, and affirmed by the ascension. 37 On the cross, Jesus offered a final victory shout, "It is finished," before he gave up his spirit (John 19:30). Through his death and resurrection, Christ destroyed the works of the devil and his hosts. Paul captures this thought clearly in Colossians 2:15, "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (NIV). Similarly, Hebrews 2:14-17 asserts that Christ's crucifixion was meant to give the warrior king the mandate to defeat the devil and deliver his captives. 38 In Colossians 2:15 Paul uses the Roman practice where a conqueror paraded the conquered and displayed them publicly through principal streets to shame them and to announce their defeat. Paul's point, therefore, is that Christ, through his atoning sacrifice on the cross, has conquered principalities and powers and has displayed them publicly to shame them. The term "disarmed" underlines that these powers have been rendered powerless. People fight with weapons. Therefore, if one is deprived of his/her weapon, then the person is powerless. Paul pictures principalities and authorities as rendered powerless in the post-resurrection era.
The Bono-Twi version of Colossians 2:15 captures this imagery aptly, saying "Na watutu mpanyinnie ne tumidie nyinaa agu, ayi bɛ adi akyerɛ pefee ya badwam, nam asennua he so adi bɛ so nkunim" (lit. "And he has uprooted all principalities and powers and has displayed them publicly as means of having victory over them through the cross"). The Bono metaphor of watutu (he/she/it has "uprooted") gives a dramatic picture of what Christ did to these powers. The agricultural metaphor of uprooting speaks volumes to the Bono (Akan) reader. In the predominantly farming Bono community, people are familiar with the agricultural activities of preparing the land for cultivation. In the preparation, trees are either cut or uprooted. A tree when cut has the chance of surviving and growing again because the roots which supply it with essential nutrients still remain alive in the soil. On the contrary, an uprooted tree has no chance of survival. The word "uproot" suggests that the roots have been turned up. Since the roots have no contact with the soil, they wither and dry up together with other parts of the tree. The idea of demonic powers made like trees without roots captures how the death of Christ has made demonic powers powerless. There is a common Ghanaian saying "Amaga ne Amaga hyia a, yehu Amagahoho" (lit. "when two strong men meet, you find out who is the real deal"). The evil powers thought they were strong and could conquer Christ. They foolishly failed to realize that Christ is the source of power. They glossed over the fact of Christ's supremacy and omnipotence and suffered the consequences. Simon J. Gathercole captures the horror of Jesus' rivals: "Apparently, even the demons could not shake off the knowledge that Jesus would eventually come to destroy them. There is no escape for them, however hard 35 Bethancourt, Christ the Warrior King, 140. 36  they might try to persuade him that he is too early." 39 Not even Satan himself could conquer Christ. This thought is expressed beautifully by Afua Kuma in her assertion that, "Should the devil himself become a lion and chase us as his prey, we shall have no fear; Lamb of God! Satan says he is a wolf-Jesus stretches forth his hand, and, look: Satan is a mouse." 40 Kuma's picture of Satan as a mouse before Jesus needs some commentary. Jesus is pictured as a lion, the lion of the tribe of Judah. This reminisces Revelation 5:5 where Jesus is referred to as "the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, [who] has triumphed" (NIV). Kuma's lion-mouse comparison shows clearly that Satan is no match for Christ. In fact, Satan cannot even throw a single blow at Jesus. Jesus' public display of the defeated forces underlines this fact.
The foregoing discussions qualify Jesus not only as Ɔsagyefoɔ but also as Ɔkatakyie (lit. "the cover of someone's back", but meaning, the Brave one or the Hero). There is a saying that "each one fends for him/herself", meaning, when there is trouble, one has to cover his head first before covering that of another person. As part of safety protocols in an aircraft, passengers are advised to wear their own air masks first before helping others to wear theirs in case the need arises. The point is that one must care for his/her safety before caring for others. Ɔkatakyie is capable of covering both his back and others'. In the case of Jesus, he is considered Ɔkatakyie, not only because he covers other people's backs but also because he alone gives others real protection. He does not need any protection because he is the true Protector. The title Ɔkatakyie is reserved "for war heroes who make a clean sweep of their enemies and return from battle victorious. It is only a brave person and man of valor who fights and covers his back while facing the enemy or does not turn his back to the enemy in battle." 41 Referring to Jesus as Ɔkatakyie is, therefore, an acknowledgment of his incomparable military prowess.
Ɔsagyefoɔ Kristo (Christ) gives freedom to those in bondage. In his mission statement, he indicated that his anointing was meant for the freedom of those in bondage (cf. Luke 4:18-19). A foretaste of Christ's victory was demonstrated in his ministry of exorcism. George Eldon Ladd observed that "The meaning of Jesus' exorcism of demons in its relationship to the Kingdom of God is precisely this: that before the eschatological conquest of God's Kingdom over evil and the destruction of Satan, the Kingdom of God has invaded the realm of Satan to deal him a preliminary but decisive defeat." 42 Jesus cast out demons with the power of his word (Matt 8:16) and exorcised others through prayers . He is, therefore, Ɔsagyefoɔ par excellence, Ɔsagyefoɔ extraordinaire, and the incomparable Ɔsagyefoɔ. No human Ɔsagyefoɔ compares to Jesus. Human Ɔsagyefoɔ only gives a glimpse of the nature of Ɔsagyefoɔ Kristo, to whom alone all powers belong.

Ɔseadeɛyɔ Christology
The word Ɔseadeɛyɔ ("faithful to his words") derives from the words Ɔse ("he/she says/promises"), adeɛ ("something") and ɔyɔ ("he/she does it"). Therefore, Ɔseadeɛyɔ means a person who does not fail to fulfill his/ her promises. The reference to the Dormaahene as Ɔseadeɛyɔ highlights that the king fulfills all his promises or accomplishes whatever he sets his sights on. Being Ɔseadeɛyɔ also means one is dependable. Dependability requires faithfulness. If Ɔseadeɛyɔ, then the Dormaahene is never nsa-akyi-nsa-yam ("yes" and "no" at the same time). His people can trust him. Faithfulness, trust and dependability are all important qualities of a great king because every king has been entrusted with the community's resources. To be Ɔseadeɛyɔ requires one to be sovereign and powerful, because without these attributes one may not be able to deliver his promises to his people. Given this understanding, one may consider the expression Ɔseadeɛyɔ as encompassing Ɔdeneho (sovereign) and Otumfoɔ (powerful), because both attributes are pre-requisites for exhibiting the full potential of Ɔseadeɛyɔ. 43 Thus, the reference to the Dormaahene as Ɔseadeɛyɔ presupposes that he is a sovereign and powerful king.
What is key to the present discussion is how Christ presents himself as Ɔseadeɛyɔ. The idea that Christ is Ɔseadeɛyɔ is biblical. Revelation 19:11-21 presents one of the Bible's most spectacular moments of victory: the Parousia (the Second Coming of Christ). Various prior Scriptures prophesied this epic day of victory (Matt. 25; Zech. 14:1-4; 2 Thess. 2:7-12; Heb. 9:27-28; Jude 1:14-15). The Second Coming of Christ will definitely come to pass. Christ comes as a warrior-king to judge and to reward and punish. The event will reveal Christ's Ɔseadeɛyɔ attribute. Ɔseadeɛyɔ (as applied to Christ) expresses the same idea as the Igbo Ekwueme (The One who says and does). The Nigerian songwriter, Prospa Ochimana, applies this appellation to the Almighty God, saying, "You are the living God o! Eze (King), no one like you." Here Ochimana highlights the incomparable nature of Ekwueme. Later, he describes Ekwueme as Ebube dike (Glorious Warrior) and then says nani gi bu ekwueme (only you say and do), making the point that only Ekwueme has the power to say and do what he says. Ochimana's description of Ekueme as Ebube dike (Glorious Warrior) is significant in the present discussion. Jesus, being God (John 1:1) is Ekueme in every sense. He is the divine King and Warrior who fulfills all his promises.
If so, then Ɔseadeɛyɔ Christology underlines Christ's faithfulness. Christ prophesied his death and resurrection and it came to pass. He also promised the coming of the Holy Spirit and his promise has been fulfilled (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:5, 8; 2:1-5). The fulfilment of these promises makes it certain that he will come again as he promised (as noted earlier). Christ identified himself to the church in Laodicea as "the faithful and true witness" (Rev. 3:14). In Revelation 19:11, John says "Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war" (RSV).
John saw heaven open and observed a rider on a white horse. The horse-rider is identified with the titles Faithful and True. John had earlier seen a rider of a white horse, (Rev. 6:2); this horse was, however, given no such description/title. Reading Revelation 19:11 against the background of Revelation 3:14, it becomes clear that the rider in question is none other than Jesus Christ. The text draws on the ancient Roman practice where victorious generals rode white horses in a victory parade with their legions following them and dragging their captives behind them. Similarly, Jesus, the believers' commander-in-chief, rides a white horse as he returns victoriously to earth. The text that follows highlights Christ's absolute majesty, power, and victory.
Ɔseadeɛyɔ Christology is also evident in Christ's unchangeable nature-he is indeed "the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb. 13:8 NIV). He does not change in his being; neither does he change his mind on his (unconditional) promises. 44 Jesus demonstrated his faithfulness to his mission on earth and his unchangeable nature when he prayed that the cup of suffering be taken from him and yet said it is the will of God that is to prevail (Lk. 22:42). He knew he had come to dwell on earth for the salvation of humanity. He was, therefore, committed to finishing that task regardless of the cost involved. He could have changed his mind during his trial or during the crucifixion. Yet, he did no such thing; he remained faithful to the end and accomplished his salvific mission. He preached against nsa-akyi-nsa-yam ("yes" and "no" at the same time) attitude when he said "All you need to say is simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one" (Matt. 5:37 NIV). His life and ministry (as shown above) epitomize what is it to be faithful, Ɔseadeɛyɔ.

Ahobammɔ Christology
Christ's nature as Ɔsagyefoɔ Ɔseadeɛyɔ-and for that matter his faithfulness and victory over Satan and Satan's host-is intertwined with the protection he offers the believer. Kuma's picture of Jesus as a warrior based on imageries from Akan war formation is a good point to start the discussion on Ahobammɔ Christology. The expression "Ahobammɔ Christology" refers to the doctrine of the protection that Christ offers to his followers.

43
The reverse is true also: both Ɔdeneho (sovereign) and Otumfoɔ (powerful) are also Ɔseadeɛyɔ because with these "attributes" one can fulfill what he/she promises.

44
Some promises are conditional. For those ones, failure to meet the condition attached will lead to non-fulfilment. This does not mean Christ has failed the person. What it means is that Christ has acted consistently with his character.
Kuma captured her concept of Ahobammɔ Christology as follows: "Jesus, you are on the right and on the left. Where the sun rises, and where it sets! You are the chief of the rear-guard! You are Korobetoe, who lives forever, Chief of defense and chief of bodyguards, … Adontenhene Jesus, Field Marshal! With a gold mirror as protection; You guide us, and give us lamps of gold to lead the way." 45 Kuma's imagery draws from the Akan chieftaincy institution, particularly as it relates to the Akan war strategy.
The Dormaa war strategy offers a useful commentary on Kuma's imagery. In the Dormaa military set-up, the Dormaahene is considered as the most important person who needs maximum protection from the army, even though he also participates actively in the war. The capture or the death of the king during war renders his people defeated, and slaves to the conquering community. In view of this, all efforts are made to protect the king from the enemies (opponents). As a war strategy against the capturing or killing of the king, the Dormaahene (like other kings/chiefs) usually occupies a central position during the war with other chiefs flanked around him. To the right and left of the Dormaahene are the Nifahene (right-wing chief) and the Benkumhene (left-wing chief) respectively. The Adɔntenhene (the vanguard) goes in front of the army while the Kyidɔmhene (the rear guard) gathers the soldiers who are left behind and sends them back. In addition to these groups are the Akwansrafoɔ (mainly hunters responsible for scouting the route to be taken by the army) and the Twafoɔ (who follow the scouts and serve as spiritual guards of the chief) who also come in front of the chief. Following the Twafoɔ is the main body comprising the Adɔnten and the Kronti divisions. This is followed by the king and his bodyguards (as depicted diagrammatically below).

The Dormaa state's traditional military setup
The above military set-up of the Dormaa people reveals the Christological significance of Kuma's reference to Jesus as Adɔntehene, and Kyidɔmhene. Kuma implicitly identifies Jesus as Nifahene and Benkumhene by considering him as being on the right and on the left respectively. Worthy of note is the fact that unlike the Dormaa/Akan military arrangement where various people are assigned different roles, Kuma sees Jesus as a fulfillment of all the functions of the various divisions in the Dormaa/Akan army setup. Drawing on Kuma's metaphor, the Christian can be considered as the king/chief who is so precious to God that he (God) makes all efforts to protect him/her. Christ, being an embodiment of the total Akan army, ensures this protection. It is therefore not surprising that Kuma says Jesus stands "at the mouth of the big gun while your body absorbs the bullets aimed at your followers." 46 This means when Satan attacks, Jesus forms a spiritual bulletproof shield for his followers and therefore no follower of Jesus can be harmed by the schemes of Satan. This, however, is true only for those who continue to abide in Christ. Hence, Kuma avows that Satan's attack against the believer is fruitless when "the people of Jesus" remain "in the midst of the mountains of Zion." 47 The Mount Zion metaphor underlines the effectiveness of Christ's protection for the believer and the need to continually abide in Christ. This Christological thought expressed through the imagery of Christ serving as a protective covering for the believer brings to mind Paul's metaphor of the spiritual warfare between Christians and powers and principalities (Eph. 6:12-18). Kuma alludes to this point when she says the weapons for the spiritual battle are not bullets or guns. 48 By this statement, Kuma implies that her use of physical weapons for Jesus's battle is figurative rather than literal. This view is an echo of David's assertion that God "saves not with sword and spear" (1 Sam. 17:47). Here, David was talking about salvation from the enemy in the context of war. Indeed, God has provided the believer with both what is needed for attacking the enemy (weapon) and what is needed for protecting oneself from the attacks of the enemy (armor).
Coming back to the Ephesian text (6:12-18), Paul, drawing from the Roman army, encourages the believer to be battle-ready at all times with his/her helmet (salvation), belt (truth), sword (word of God), shield (faith), breastplate (righteousness), and his feet protected with the gospel of peace. The Christian is expected to put on these military armors through holy life so that he/she does not fall prey to Satan. This is important because as William M. Greathouse asserts "Christ's victory is complete but not final." 49 Though Christ has won the victory over evil forces, this victory will only be manifested fully during the Parousia when he arrives in his glory to glorify believers . Until then "our sanctification has the character of spiritual warfare in which our victory over sin is assured as we permit Christ to live moment by moment in us (John 15:1-6; Eph. 6:10-15; Phil. 1:6)." 50 Paul's thought about the Christian armor links well with Kuma's reference to Jesus as wearing a batakari (smock) studded with the sun and the moon that "sparkle like the morning star." 51 Traditionally, the batakari is a type of dress worn by priest diviners and used as a war dress as well. The batakari used for religious and military purposes are usually studded with talismans as a means of protecting one from spells, incantations, bullets, arrows and other weapons. Kuma depicts Jesus as a Great Warrior who leads Christians into battle wearing his batakarikɛseɛ (great batakari). Studded with the sun and the moon, Jesus's batakari offers the greatest and most perfect protection. Christians can therefore be rest assured that with Jesus around them no enemy (physical or spiritual) can come near them. With Jesus, the "Sergeant-Major of the Soldiers" and the "Victorious Chief of soldiers" 52 on every side of the believer, no power dares come near. The atonement, therefore, equips the Christian to be an overcomer in spiritual warfare.

Implications for (traditional) leaders
Chieftaincy titles and appellations have great theological value. For example, they draw attention to the fact that humans, as image-bearers of God, exercise divine power delegated to them by God. They also draw attention to human limitedness in that even though humans claim these titles and appellations, their limitations do not allow them to live the full meaning of these titles and appellations. Human chiefs/kings are acting on God's behalf and, as such, are accountable to him (God). Given this understanding, all chiefs/kings need to assess their leadership through a biblical lens and must, at all times, aim at pleasing God rather than humans.
The paper appeals to all leaders to demonstrate Christ-likeness in their dealings, noting that God has given them people to lead. All power belongs to God; therefore, traditional rulers must not in any way behave as if the source of their authority resides in themselves. Those in authority must note that God rules his creation through them who he (God) has appointed as channels of blessings to others.
Furthermore, (traditional) leaders must be peace-loving because Christ, whose leadership they depict, is peace-loving. Unity and peace are intertwined. The paper therefore calls for unity among all the diverse tribal groups in Ghana and even beyond. The unity advocated here is not uniformity but unity in diversity. The various ethnic groups/tribes will continue to have their peculiarities and have their own rulers. However, this should not affect the peace that the broader society must enjoy. Traditional leaders are therefore invited to consider themselves as representatives of Christ and act like little "Christs" who unite people and lead them to God.

CONCLUSION
The paper has interpreted the chieftaincy appellations Ɔsagyefoɔ and Ɔseadeɛyɔ from a Christological perspective, linking them to Christ's protection of the believer from evil powers. Thus, Christ is a divine warrior king who defeats kingdom rivals through his life, ministry, death and resurrection, and protects the citizens of his kingdom against any attack from the enemy. The chieftaincy appellations of the Dormaahene have rich Christology which when explored from an Akan Christian perspective will not only facilitate the Christianization of the chieftaincy institution but will also enhance the contextualization of Christianity in Africa. It is, however, important that traditional rulers acknowledge the limitations of the rule in comparison with Christ's incomparable rule. Finally, the appellations of the Dormaahene have a Christological-revelatory role in drawing the Dormaa people (and the world at large) to Christ. The Christological appellations of the Dormaahene confer on him a Christian ambassadorial role. As such, God expects the great king to make the greatest King known through his (the great king's) leadership.