I didn't ignore your post. I thanked you for it. However, I find none of it applicable.
See, when I bring up something like, "Sell all that you have, give to the poor, and follow Jesus" I'm promptly told that the statement was meant only for the rich young ruler. Therefore, I understand Deuteronomy to be only for the pre-Messianic Jews. I understand the epistles addressed to Timothy to be for Timothy. I understand the epistle to the Ephesians to be for... well, you get the point.
There is such a thing as establishing a principle to be more widely implemented than in the literal context in which it is given without therefore being rejected or falling into disuse. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
It has been reported since Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century) that the Alexandrian ascetic and Biblical scholar Origen read Matthew 19:12, took it literally, and castrated himself. Given that Eusebius himself reports this deed (in an otherwise glowing review of Origen in his Church History, book VI) as being evidence of "an immature and youthful mind", we can surmise that this is not how the scriptures were to be understood even in ancient times, and that such an understanding ran afoul even of those people who admired the commitment shown by the act itself (as Eusebius seems to, and as Origen's superior, Demetrius of Alexandria, did for a time). And yet in no way can it be said that the principle by which Origen reasoned that he ought to castrate himself is violated due to his extreme action, at least not any more than we can say that St. Paul's exhortation that it is better for those who can handle it to remain unmarried likewise violates the same saint's writing to the Hebrews that "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled" (13:4). Things do not work that way just because some people see everything in black and white. Please give the ancients a little more credit than that, or at least attempt to refrain from reading modern reasoning into ancient texts.
How any particular verse or command ought to be interpreted is not a simple matter, since there are various schools of ancient provenance that emphasize some aspects or methods more than others, so there is not now nor has there ever been complete unanimity regarding how to interpret the Bible. Origen's own tradition, that of the School of Alexandria at which he once served as dean, tends toward allegory, though not to the point of denying the historical reality of the personages found in the scriptures or anything like that (we just don't stop at affirming the existence of people and places). The Antiochian tradition, by contrast, tends to be more historically-minded. The preexisting philosophical traditions embraced in each region (not just as concerns the reading of the Bible, but every part of the faith which is touched by the dominant philosophy, e.g., also Christology) has occasionally led to conflicting interpretations even during those times when their respective churches were in communion with one another, e.g., the conflict between St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch over the acceptability of the other's Christological formula in the years preceding the Council of Chalcedon.
So, again, it's not as simple as saying "You either do/believe this or this, based on this and this". For something to be shown to be wrong, full stop, it needs to be shown to
violate what is held in common, throughout the whole, not simply be a different interpretation. So I wouldn't have any problem with someone who sells all they have and gives it to the poor (as monks in my own Church do to this day), in accordance with the verse you're looking at, or with someone who does not sell all they have, but perhaps reads the verse as an exhortation concerning
how far they should be willing to go should the right circumstance and opportunity present themselves. The scriptures also tell us that greater love hath no man than that a man lay his life down for his friends. This does not mean that we may only recognize martyrs who have done just that as saints or people otherwise worthy of emulation. The principle remains unviolated and still worthy of being internalized even if it doesn't result in the same action from every person who hears or reads it.