The OP states, “The linguistic reference to perfection has sometimes been interpreted as saying that selling your possessions and giving the money to the poor is supererogatory: virtuous, but not mandatory.” Such a delineation, I think, risks missing the point of Jesus’ teaching, which involves a major paradigm shift in the way we think about what God desires of us.
The concepts of mandatory and supererogatory apply to actions, such as those that are required by the law. If the focus is just on our actions, some things may be deemed mandatory while others, supererogatory. But if what we desire is true spiritual growth and transformation, such categories lose relevance. Between the two points of view there is a shift in focus from what we should do or should not do, to the state of our spiritual progress set against the standard of God’s perfection.
To sell one’s possessions and give the proceeds to the poor is therefore not seen as a commandment. Nor is it merely a virtuous thing to do. Rather, it reflects the sticking point of this particular individual and how his attachment to worldly possessions prevents him from following Jesus. Commentators generally agree that this is not something that is commanded of all men (e.g., Ellicott, Gill). Some view it as representative of a higher precept (e.g., Barnes, Matthew Poole).
Commentary on Matthew 19:21
Go and sell that thou hast.—It would be altogether a mistake to see in
this either an obligation binding on all seekers after eternal life,
or even what has been called a “counsel of perfection,” a precept
laying down an indispensable condition for all who aim at its higher
forms and powers. It was strictly a remedy for the special evil which
hindered the young ruler’s progress to perfection, applicable to
others so far only as their cases are analogous. – Ellicott
Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have
treasure in heaven: not that either the law of God, or Gospel of
Christ, require this to be done of all men, and at all times; for
though it is a duty binding upon all, and always, to relieve the poor
and the needy, yet a man is not obliged to give all that he has to
them; see 2 Corinthians 8:11 nor does either legal or Christian
perfection lie in doing this: a man may give all his goods to the poor
and yet be destitute of the grace of God, 1 Corinthians 13:3 much less
can such an action merit the heavenly treasure of eternal life.
Nevertheless of some persons, and in some cases, it has been required,
that they part with all their worldly substance, for the sake of
Christ and his Gospel; as the apostles were called to leave all and
follow Christ, as this man was also – Gill
Go and sell that thou hast ... - The young man declared that he had
kept the law. That law required, among other things, that he should
love his neighbor as himself. It required, also, that he should love
the Lord his God supremely; that is, more than all other objects. If
he had that true love to God and man - if he loved his Maker and
fellow-creatures more than he did his property, he would be willing to
give up his wealth to the service of God and of man – Barnes
The worldly attachments that prevent us from embarking on the path of perfection are not the same for every person. Likewise the test of our devotion would be different for each. For this man, it is his possessions. For others, it might be something else, like vanity, pride, power or position (cf 1 Jn 2:15-16, Rom 12:2, Jam 1:27). Because they stand in the way of our spiritual growth, it is imperative that we overcome these obstacles. The question for each of us is whether we can relinquish the things that keep us from following Jesus.
Jesus loves this young man for the sincerity with which he seeks holiness. While the invitation is likewise sincere, Jesus knows what the man’s answer would be. In setting a condition that he knew the man could not meet, Jesus is planting the seed of self-knowledge that will, I believe, bring about spiritual growth in time.
