Aractus Wrote:In short, Jesus is teaching that the ruler lacks love for his neighbour - not that he lacks love for God. He loves his wealth and riches more than his neighbour, and that's why he wouldn't when asked sacrifice his riches for the good of his neighbours.
This is a strange argument from silence, that since Jesus does not quote the table of the law applying to God, he accepts that the young man obeys these commands, but since he does quote much of the table applying to fellow men, he is saying that the young man lacks love for his neighbor. Seems like tortuous logic to me.
The fact is the young man says that he has obeyed the commands to love his neighbor and Jesus does not contradict him.
Neither does Jesus imply, as you seem to suggest, that the Scribes and Pharisees came close to fulfilling the law, but no one can fulfill it so perfectly as to deserve eternal life. On the contrary, he says that they did a very bad job of fulfilling the law: they were very good at the minor details but ignored the major duties: "You pay a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faith. These things should have been done without neglecting the others."
He does tell the young man to sell all that he has and give it to the poor. That's quite an extreme demand, but by your logic total sacrifice to help your neighbor is the only way to obey God's law.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people — House
