This is a study on "eschatology precedes soteriology".
It tackles questions such as "Did Christ come into the world for us? or we came into the world for Christ," which, as Mark Jones calls the latter, is a form of Christological supralapsarianism.
The Son (as theanthropos) must be at the centre of God's creating purposes, not simply his redeeming purposes. The creation of the world exists for the sake of the Son, otherwise we can make no sense of Colossians 1:16, which has in view the Son as God-man (i.e., Christ), not the Son simpliciter. Hence, Adam and Eve were created for Christ and by Christ. ~ Jones.
Salvation from sin is not the highest end of humanity, but rather, the eternal communion with God.
Because of the Creator-creature distinction, God must nevertheless condescend before we can "ascend."
Mark Jones however focus the eschatological solution solely in incarnation. He did not touch on the Tree of Life at all. I would not want to close the chapter with a slam dunk in just incarnation, but am open to other types of ending/beginning apart from incarnation or rather, a different kind of incarnation. One which allows Lane Tipton to hold his "[current type of ]Incarnation - to solve a covenantal problem and not a ontological problem, given sin and not given creation." Therefore, if this were a different kind of incarnation, it would be an ontological ascension, given creation. To stay with Tipton and not with Rome, Schleiermacher nor Barth, I would posit two different kinds of incarnation. If we must use incarnation as Christ's rule in a sinless Adamic world. I am well open to other ends apart from incarnation of Christ had Adam stood. However, I want to ground my argument on the Tree of Life, as a precursor of Christ, incarnation or not.