I will add:

Consider these ideas when thinking on what Jesus might've meant when He commanded the rich man to "sell all his possessions and give to the poor."

A man reading that verse in 400 AD might draw wildly different conclusions from it than one in 2025 would -- because "the poor" were quite different in both eras, and the consequences of "selling all you have" differed dramatically.

And a good example of these differences is found in the homily by St Basil titled To the Rich, written in the 4th century during a famine.

For a Priest to give that homily in almost any Church today would cause people to literally storm out of the Church in a rage. Search it up and read it yourself and you'll see why I say this -- Saint Basil (who is a Doctor of the Church) passionately exhorted all Christians to take Christ's teachings to the rich man completely literally: to prefer less, to eschew wealth, to almost play hot potato with any coin that might come into Christian hands, and to never amass great stores of wealth.

It is hard to grasp how extreme this teaching would've been in an era where "selling all you have" might very well result in literal starvation.

Yet they took Matthew 19:26 quite literally: "...with God, all things are possible."

Why, then, were those for whom starvation was a real threat so much more willing to entertain the "sell all you have" idea than we are -- we who live in a country where a person couldn't experience real abjection if they tried?

We can see very clearly that luxury causes the spirit to degenerate and to soften into formlessness; the comfortable man justifies his comforts at the expense of anything -- even his own salvation. Why then, should we, citizens of the most comfortable nation in the most comfortable era in history, delude ourselves into imagining that Saint Basil wasn't preaching to us, or that Christ Himself was teaching only the rich man and not to us?

Are we not all "the rich man?"