Should Genesis rightly be identified as law--that is, as torah or legal instruction for Israel? Peterson argues in the affirmative, concluding that Genesis serves a greater function than merely offering a prehistory or backstory for the people of Israel. As the introductory book to the Torah, Genesis must first and foremost be read as legal instruction for Israel. And how exactly is that instruction presented? Peterson posits that many of the Genesis accounts serve as case law. The Genesis narratives depict what a number of key laws in the pentateuchal law codes look like in practice. When Genesis is read through this lens, the rhetorical strategy of the biblical author(s) becomes clear and the purpose for including specific narratives takes on new meaning.
Peterson seems on the right track in asking how Israel on the edge of Canaan would have read and interpreted Genesis. He spots many useful connections between Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch that show how this first book provides legal and moral instruction for the people of God, called to be a light to the nations. But in light of the Pentateuch's own prophetic anticipation of Israel's failure to obey and the need for a future Messiah, one can't help feeling that Peterson has got it all backwards – i.e. that Genesis is not merely meant to help Israel be more moral, but rather to help live by faith in God's unchanging promises amidst their own moral failure. Perhaps that explains why there is no attempt at Christian application in the book?
A timely reminder that trying to understand how Genesis functioned for the intended original audience is a good step before going on to seeing its fulfillment in Jesus (however one defines that). Full of interesting topics and plenty of OT text links (can’t remember the proper term for that).