I hope it is not controversial to say that Saul of Tarsus before his conversion must have shared what was probably the majority view in Israel – that Jesus of Nazareth was an offender against the Torah and a misleader of the people, who had rightly suffered the death of one accursed.
Even our first record of Jesus’ early career (Mark) moves immediately from a 16-verse introduction to a string of 88 verses in which ten out of twelve stories portray Jesus transgressing the literal sense of seven different points of the Law:
1. Sabbath-breaking (Mk 2:24 & 3:6)
2. Neglect of fasting (2:18)
3. Neglect of family (3:33)
4. Contact with lepers (1:41)
5. Eating with sinners (2:16)
6. Blasphemy i.e. Authority to forgive sin (2:7)
7. Alliance with Satan (3:22) i.e. authority over demons (1:27, 34, 39, 3:11)
Mark’s source for the early career of Jesus clearly relies heavily on stories of apparent law-breaking, most of which are accompanied by Jesus’ own prophetic rationale for setting aside the Law. Can it be doubted that many reports of the deeds of Jesus were circulating without benefit of the sayings attached by Mark? I think Mark’s emphasis suggests that lawbreaking was an issue for Jews who criticized the mission of Jesus in his lifetime and after the crucifixion.
To an unsympathetic ear it would make no difference if these stories circulated with or without Jesus’ rationale attached. Because it was I think a matter of common knowledge – also confirmed by Mark (8:11-12) – that Jesus had refused to provide the test-sign demanded by the religious authorities in proof of his authority. This constituted for them a warrant of the Law itself for disregarding Jesus’ prophetic claims.
I think this is the perspective of the old Saul - knowing that Jesus, despite his alleged works, had after all refused to authorize his mission by the sign required by Moses, Saul had judged that the Law justly regarded his sin as worthy of condemnation and death.
The perspective of the new Saul is best seen from the standpoint of his brief and electrifying encounter on the way to Damascus (Acts 9:2-9). I trust this report to represent not a dream or myth but a genuine revelation event. Saul sees and hears for himself what the martyr Stephen had claimed to see – that this Jesus who for all appearances had set the law aside – who under the Law of God was made to be sin and was crucified - is now in the power of the spirit alive.
Saul’s revelation doesn’t give him faith in the fact of the resurrection (one doesn’t ‘have faith’ in experienced facts). The true object of Saul’s faith is his rapidly-developing view of the meaning and value of the resurrection. This view was illuminated by Saul’s faith in God, which was never in question. In its light he comprehends that it is the God of Israel who has raised Jesus from the dead. A corollary to this faith is the belief that the risen one is God’s anointed, the hope of Israel.
All of which will be quite formative and quite problematic for the future of Christianity.