Jesus tells us in the Olivet Discourse that when he returns he will sit on the throne of his glory (Matthew 25:31). However, Paul also claims that, when Christ comes (1Corinthians 15:23), “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power” (1Corinthians 15:24). How does Jesus sit upon the throne of his glory at his coming (Matthew 25:31), when he, at the same time, delivers the Kingdom to God, his Father (1Corinthians 15:24)?
Paul goes on to say in the next verse, “he (Jesus) must reign, until he has put all enemies under his feet” (1Corinthians 15:25). However, according to Psalm 110:1 “Jehovah said to my Lord (the Messiah), ‘Sit at My right hand, until I place Your enemies as Your footstool’” (parenthesis mine). In other words, while Jesus waited for his return, when he would sit upon the throne of his glory (Matthew 25:1), he ruled from the right hand of God, i.e. he sat upon the throne of God ruling among his enemies (Psalm 110:2). Therefore, if we connect 1Corinthians 15 and Psalm 110 together, Jesus delivers his Kingdom over to his Father at the time Jesus returns to judge and defeat his enemies. If this is an abdication, then how does Jesus sit on the throne of his glory when he returns (Matthew 25:31)?
The Greek word in 1Corinthians 15:24, for Jesus having delivered the Kingdom to his Father, is paradidomi (G3860). The same Greek word is used in Jude 1:3 where Jude exhorts the saints to contend for the faith that was once delivered unto them. Does this mean that when the Apostles delivered (G3860) the Gospel to others, the Apostles no longer had the Gospel? Such a thought is ridiculous. Paul, also, when writing to the Corinthians, says, “For I delivered (G3860) unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures…” (1Corinthians 15:3). When Paul delivered to the Corinthians that which he received, did Paul no longer possess it? Again, such an argument would be ridiculous. Therefore, when Jesus, at his coming, delivers (G3860) the Kingdom over to his Father (1Corinthians 15:23-24) does not mean he (Jesus) cannot sit upon the throne of his glory (Matthew 25:1). What Jesus is doing is sharing with his Father what he has gained as he came into his Kingdom.
We need to keep in mind that Daniel also prophesied about these same events in Daniel 7. He saw a vision of four kingdoms, which were eventually judged and their authority was taken away. Moreover, Daniel saw one like the Son of Man who was given a Kingdom that would never pass away (Daniel 7:13-14). However, Daniel didn’t understand the vision, but an angel interpreted it for him (Daniel 7:15-16). According to the interpretation of the angel, the four beasts represented ancient (gentile) kingdoms, but Daniel’s main interest was with the fourth kingdom and the little horn that arose out of that kingdom (Daniel 7:19-22). The little horn seemed to be a persecuting power against the people of God, wearing them out (Daniel 19:25).
What occurs then, according to the angel, the one like the Son of Man (Christ) who had come on a cloud to the Ancient of Days (God the Father) to receive a Kingdom (Daniel 7:13-14) would at that time destroy the little horn and reward the saints with their inheritance – the Kingdom (Daniel 7:18, 21-22, 24-27).
The point of the matter is this. Daniel foretells the rise of the Roman Empire (the fourth beast), out of whom also arises a power or authority that persecuted the people of God. Nevertheless, Daniel prophesies of the judgment of the wicked and the vindication of the saints. That very judgment finds greater expression in Matthew 25:31 and following. It is at that time that Jesus, the Messiah, (the Son of Man in Daniel) sits upon the throne of his glory and judges between the righteous (the sheep) and the wicked (the goats). This occurred in 70 AD, when the Lord returned to judge Jerusalem and the Temple (cf. Matthew 26:64). No matter how one wishes to interpret these matters, one cannot take his interpretation beyond the existence of the fourth beast. In other words, the interpretation of Daniel 7 and the Olivet Discourse must be confined to the days of the Roman Empire, not 2000 years later.