Here is a quote by Scot McKnight, reflecting on Keller’s explanation on his encounter with the rich young ruler (read the rest of the post here):
I’ll give you my take: I think Jesus showed the man that he didn’t follow the second table of the Ten Commandments because Jesus adds Lev 19:18, love your neighbor, as the way to read the second table, and Jesus reveals to the man that he really doesn’t love others because true love for neighbor is to surrender possessions for the poor. I see here a radical kingdom vision wherein Jesus is Lord (where I see the gravity of this passage), where fellowship with others (all) shapes what we do with what we have, and wherein Jesus as Lord (the cross-shaped life to be sure) means we undertake to live what he calls us to do.
In this post, McKnight sees Keller’s explanation as “vintage Keller” reading from a view that is derived “from his Augustinian anthropology and Reformation lens of soteriology.” But in McKnight’s take on Jesus’ encounter with the rich young ruler, I have to say this is vintage McKnight. If you’ve read Jesus Creed then you’d know what I mean. Because for McKnight, our love for God should spill out to reflect our love for others. In this case, the real test for the rich young ruler to really show his devotion to God is by giving away all his possession. I think McKnight gets the broader picture here, although not undermining Keller’s take that the young ruler was in fact holding tight on his reliance on his riches as a means for security.
It’s quite a call as well as demand but initially it will eventually reflect where our devotion to God lies.