The argument that Jesus received only a partial kingship in 33  CE is considered a possibility, never borne out specifically, but could be interpreted as a possibility from Ephesians 1:20,21 when compared with Colossians 2:

Also, there is a coincidental mising of a phrase that says Jesus is King when it says Jesus is priest. There is a similar lack of a direct statement in Acts 2 where the verse calls Jesus Lord and Christ, but not King. Stephen says he sees Jesus revealed as standing at God’s right hand in a vision. But a vision can be interpreted as a vision of a later time. Revelation directly addresses Jesus as the King of Kings in the opening chapter before any of the visions have begun, and before John finds himself in the “Lord’s day” (assumed to mean the time period of the Last days). but this is discounted in the arguments of JWs by the very fact that it’s in the book of Revelation which is supposed to focus on the theme of what happens since 1914.

There are some Scriptures that would indicate that Jesus is already seen as a “king” even during the early parts of his ministry, even before his resurrection. This lends support to the idea that Jesus was seen as king-designate, leading to the idea that if he only the king-designate in say 29 CE, that he could just as easily be King