If ideological factors have encouraged some to doubt or deny that Jesus thought too highly of himself, such factors have also prodded others to do just the opposite, to attribute to him as high a Christology as possible. The orthodox church fathers, in their ardent crusades against the Arians, again and again construed and misconstrued texts so as to make Jesus champion their own orthodoxy; and “it has always been a vital question in Christology to discover how far the impact made by the earthly life of Jesus and his own understanding of his person can sustain the weight of the Christological construction put upon them by the early church.”
The theologies of Christendom, including modern evangelical theologies, have struggled to make sense of the apocalyptic Jesus—apocalyptic not only in that he predicts future events of an apocalyptic nature but also in that his identity and status are bound up with these apocalyptic scenarios. Allison thinks that Jesus basically got the future wrong—at least the timing of the end. I disagree. I think Jesus got the timing spot on, only we have got the “end” wrong. But Allison is correct here (the paragraph really needs to be read in context) to highlight the difficulty of reconciling the thoroughly apocalyptic self-understanding of Jesus with later theological constructs. The quote in the quote is from I. Howard Marshall’s The Origins of New Testament Christology.