For commentators who see this period of persecution/tribulation as the period known as 'the Great Tribulation' (a period of several years immediately before the Return of Christ, and immediately after the rapture/removal of the Church from the world), this is clearly an interim (but not the same 'interim' we are in now), but the command is still just in continuity with the call to loyalty given the Hebrew Bible. Nothing really new here.

"During the Tribulation only believers who “endure to the end” will be delivered, not from hell, but from physical death (cf. use of saved in v 22). Endurance under trial is never a means to salvation from the penalty of sin for that would entail human merit (Eph 2:8–9). The passage does not assert that a believer must endure to the end of his life to remain saved or to prove he is regenerate. Salvation cannot be lost (John 6:37, 39; 10:28–29; Eph 4:30), and assurance rests on the promises of God and Jesus Christ, not on performance under severe trial (1 John 5:13) ... Endurance will culminate in a glorious, physical deliverance and rewarding of a faithful Jewish remnant. Not everyone will be slain (Matt 24:9, 22); Jesus will come to their rescue (v 31). The words are spoken to encourage those who will go through that terrible time not to lose heart." [Haller, H. M., Jr. (2010). The Gospel according to Matthew. In R. N. Wilkin (Ed.), The Grace New Testament Commentary (R. N. Wilkin, Ed.) (110). Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society.]

For commentators who see this period of persecution/tribulation as the pre-70ad period (e.g. France), the reference is still just 'generic':

"In response to both the outward threats of vv. 4–8 and the destabilizing tendencies within the disciple community (vv. 9–12) the only remedy is deliberate, sustained faithfulness to the values and demands of God’s kingdom. This verse repeats the exhortation of 10:22b; see comments there. We noted there that “the phrase eis telos, ‘to the end,’ can hardly have … a specific reference, but simply means persevering for as long as may be necessary” and that “the thought loosely echoes Dan 12:12–13, a beatitude on those who remain faithful and will receive their reward ‘at the end of the days’.” Here, however, it comes between two references to “the end” in vv. 6 and 14 which clearly have a more specific reference. If, as the context here suggests, that “end” is the destruction of the temple which is the subject of the disciples’ question (see on v. 6), it would be possible to read eis telos here in the same sense: whoever stands firm throughout the historical process which will culminate in the destruction of the temple will be saved. But it is not easy to see what sort of “salvation” fits that scenario, and it is more likely that the adverbial phrase eis telos (not eis to telos) functions independently of the articular noun to telos, and has the same sense here that it had in 10:22b; in that case the call is for faithfulness “for as long as it takes,” and the promise is of the ultimate spiritual security (see on 10:22) of those who have stood firm in their discipleship. It is that promise, rather than physical safety at the time of the fall of Jerusalem, which best matches the dangers to faith spelled out in vv. 9–12." [France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (907). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co.]

Some commentators see this period of persecution as a future part of the present age (which is characterized by the Gentile mission)--and, in the context of verse 14, must require a delay in the Parousia:

(13) The logion of this verse is found verbatim in 10:22b. Again in a context of tribulation and persecution the promise of ultimate salvation is given to the one who endures εἰς τέλος, “to the end.” Indirectly, the point is underlined that severe tribulation will be experienced before the coming of the end of the age. (14) Another characteristic of the time that precedes the end is the universal proclamation of τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας, “this gospel of the kingdom” (cf. 4:23; 9:35). This era is obviously to be sharply distinguished from the time of Jesus himself, when the mission of the twelve was explicitly restricted to Israel (10:5–6). This new time frame is inaugurated in the risen Jesus’ commissioning of his disciples in 28:19 (cf. Luke 24:47; and the apocalyptic universalism of Rev 14:6). The verb κηρύσσειν, “proclaim,” occurs regularly, as it does here, with εὐαγγέλιον, “gospel” (cf. 4:23; 9:35; 10:7; 26:13). Quite possibly Matthew’s unique expression “this gospel of the kingdom” (so too in 26:13) is a deliberate paralleling of Jesus’ teaching as recorded in his Gospel to Deuteronomy’s reference to this book of the law, the Second Testament thus corresponding to the First Testament (thus Grassi). The universality of the proclamation is stressed by the words ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ, “in the whole world” (the last word occurs in Matthew only here). The proclamation involves the providing of a μαρτύριον, “witness” (cf. 8:4; 10:18), i.e., the recounting of the events that constitute the gospel or “kerygma.” For πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “all the Gentiles,” cf. v. 9 and 28:19. The concluding statement καὶ τότε ἥξει τὸ τέλος, “and then the end will come,” stands as the counterpart to the cautionary statement that “not yet is the end” in v. 6 (cf. v. 13; 10:22). The end of the present age, concerning which the disciples inquire in the question of v. 3, cannot come immediately but must be preceded by a period of universal evangelization (see Thompson). The parousia must therefore be delayed." [Hagner, D. A. (1998). Vol. 33B: Matthew 14–28. Word Biblical Commentary (695–696). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]

" (at 10.22) The point of the statement is clear: the one who faithfully endures this persecution εἰς τέλος, “to the end” (i.e., the end of the person’s life or the end of the persecution and hence the end of the age), will be saved (see 4 Ezra 6:25; 9:7–8; 2 Tim 2:12) and will enter finally into the blessed peace promised to the participants in the kingdom." [Hagner, D. A. (1998). Vol. 33A: Matthew 1–13. Word Biblical Commentary (278). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]

But in any event, 'endurance' (i.e. loyalty under duress) is not an interim ethic at all. It is an ethic for all time--with the Lord, with our spouses, with our children, with our situation.

Nothing in this passage thus qualifies as data for the hypothesis.

"The rich young ruler thought of Jesus as a mere man, a “good Teacher.” He asks, “What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” The question shows that he thought he could do something good enough to merit eternal life.

"Some believe Jesus is providing a standard of works and discipleship as the way to receive eternal life or proving one had it. After all, this is what the rich young ruler asked about, and so Jesus was giving him the answer. But if this were true, no one could be saved, for what Jesus is demanding of the man is humanly impossible to attain.

"The proper interpretation of this passage depends on recognizing that Jesus did not actually answer the man’s question—at least not in a way that was possible for the man to obey. Jesus does not tell the man to believe on Him as He told others in John 3:16; 4:13–14; 5:24; 6:35, 47; 11:25–27. The reason is that what Jesus is doing here is pre-evangelism. He is showing the man that he cannot save himself by his own piety.

"Jesus first challenges the man to rethink his understanding of who Jesus is. Jesus asks, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” In other words, Jesus is God. Christ is implicitly affirming His own sinlessness and His deity.

"Second, Jesus met the young man on the grounds of his own false assumption and challenges that assumption. Since what is good is defined by the Law, Christ directs the young man to the OT commandments that have been given by the absolutely good God.

“But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Jesus then gives specific instructions from the second table of the Law specifying man’s duty to his fellow man (Matt 19:18–19a). He sums up that portion of the Law with the second greatest commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (v 19b; cf. 22:39–40).

"The self-confident young man had not even begun to comprehend his need of a Savior. He claims, “All these things have I kept from my youth. What do I still lack?” Jesus then seeks to reveal his lack to him. He tests him on the tenth and final commandment, “You shall not covet” (cf. v 21 with Exod 20:17).

"Jesus then invites the young man to part with his wealth. If he would “go, sell … give” and “come, follow” Jesus, then he would obtain “treasure in heaven” (an eternal reward). Refusing this, he left sorrowful, for his great possessions were too much to give up.

"19:23–26. When the rich young ruler had left, Jesus tells His disciples it is impossible for such a man to be saved. In a classic understatement He says it is difficult for a wealthy person “to enter the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus’ next statement is designed to show how difficult it is: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Jesus is speaking literally of a hole in a sewing needle. There was no such thing in the city walls of that time as a small gate called “the eye of a needle” that camels could go through if they went on their knees. That is something possible, but Jesus is speaking of the impossible. The disciples are exceedingly amazed. To think of the largest of animals in Palestine going through the smallest of openings (a needle’s “eye”) was absurd indeed! They asked, “Who then can be saved?” If the rich man, seemingly blessed by God, could not make it, what hope would lesser people have, including themselves?

"The lesson to the rich young ruler is that if no one is as good as God, no one can be truly good. If no one can be truly good, no one can be good enough to live with a holy God for eternity. It does not matter how much one might try to keep the Law or how much one might try to give up or give away or go on to imitate Christ’s sinless life in continuous discipleship.

"The lesson to the disciples was that salvation on the basis of merit, even though apparently attested by affluence, is impossible. If one is trusting in his or her riches as proof of one’s righteousness, that person will fail to enter the kingdom. God will save by grace or not at all. Salvation is possible only through Him." [Haller, H. M., Jr. (2010). The Gospel according to Matthew. In R. N. Wilkin (Ed.), The Grace New Testament Commentary (R. N. Wilkin, Ed.) (87–89). Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society.]

I should also mention that Jesus' command to this rich person--in historical context--might be more about the redistribution of (unearned?) wealth, under the Year of Jubilee and social justice motifs of the OT. In this perspective, the order to redistribute wealth would not be something required of all but the richest or most 'elite' of believers (even though even this is not seemingly required of believers who have the means to host churches in their home or have the means to 'shame the poor' at the communion services in Corinth (1 Cor 11.21ff).

This position is argued by J. Daniel Hays, in "Sell Everything You Have and Give to the Poor: The Old Testament Prophetic Theme of Justice as the Connecting Motif of Luke 18:1-19:10", in JETS 55/1 (2012) 43-63:

"POVERTY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE IN FIRST-CENTURY PALESTINE. Often the tendency for Western interpreters is to assume their contemporary affluent socio-economic situation as the default background context for understanding biblical exhortations regarding poverty. That is, in most Western societies there is a large majority group of middle class people with which the readers usually identify. Then at the top there is a small class of very wealthy people (e.g. millionaires and billionaires) and at the bottom there is an equally small class of poor people (e.g. the homeless). The social situation in Palestine of the first century, however, was quite different. "Peter Davids explains that at the time of Jesus there was not much of a middle class in Palestine at all. Indeed, there were two major socio-economic groups: a very small wealthy or upper-class urban elite and then a huge mass of very poor subsistence-level peasants. In first-century AD Palestine, the term "poor" probably referred to the vast majority of the population. That is, in all probability, most of the people that Jesus interacts with or speaks to, especially when outside of Jerusalem, were part of the large socio-economic group living at subsistence level, referred to in the Gospels as "the poor."

"James A. Sanders makes the same point in discussing Jesus' citation of Isaiah 61 in Luke 4. He notes that the listening audience in that synagogue would have identified themselves with the poor (for they were the poor).  Sean Freyne also draws attention to the severe social stratification in Galilee, noting that the Jewish aristocracy, particularly the priestly aristocracy, was precisely the ones who were oppressing the poor peasants.

"Bruce W. Longenecker comes to similar conclusions about the socio-economic situation in the first-century world. He argues that this reality is reflected throughout the Gospels and is especially clear in the Gospel of Luke. Longenecker notes, for example, that when John the Baptist asks Jesus if he was the coming one, Jesus answered with a list of actions associated with the eschatological liberation that the Coming One prophesied in Isaiah would bring: the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news preached to them (Luke 7:18—23). Longenecker then points out the irony of the list, observing, "Jesus' reply depicts a world in which healing blindness, curing disease, restoring hearing and raising the dead were as exceptional as encouraging the poor. The astonishment that would have attended Jesus' miracles of power is, we are led to think, comparable to the astonishment that would have attended Jesus' pronouncement of blessing to the poor." That is, the plight of the poor (the majority of the population) was so grim and hopelessly entrenched within the culture that any good news for them was viewed to be on a miraculous par with the resurrection of the dead.... [pp 48-50]

"The prophetic context of justice, as elucidated by the widow and unjust judge parable, provides a strong background for understanding Jesus' words to the ruler. Recall Jesus' concluding statement in the Parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge. As the Kingdom breaks in, God will see that his chosen ones (those with faith, humility, and prayer) get justice quickly. When this ruler in Luke 18:21 piously claims to have kept the law, Jesus sounds very much like Isaiah and cuts through the hypocrisy of cultic ritual and asks about justice, specifically in regard to the poor. As the Kingdom breaks in, Jesus, the Davidic King who will bring about justice, confronts one of Israel's rulers and tells him that if he wants to be part of the Kingdom then he must also be part of the inauguration of justice . .. starting with restitution to the poor. Furthermore, keep in mind that the entire audience for this exchange (i.e. the rest of the community) was probably part of the "poor" section of the society. That is, when Jesus says that the ruler should sell all he has and give it to the poor, it is "the poor" that are standing around them and listening. ... Jesus' demands on the ruler are far-reaching, with implications for his entire audience. But notice that this demand addresses the system of inequality where a few wealthy rulers/religious leaders are at the top while the entire rest of the community suffers and struggles in poverty at the bottom. The inauguration of justice, Jesus is announcing, involves changing the system in this community, alleviating the poverty that is all around the wealthy ruler. [pp56-57]

"CONCLUSION. It appears that the parables and stories in Luke 18:1-19:10 have numerous connections and interrelated themes. The two hypothetical parables at the beginning are closely connected and the stories that follow provide illustration and depth from encounters with real live people. From an OT perspective, the connections and allusions to the OT Prophets are evident everywhere throughout this unit. Justice, righteousness, widows, the poor, humility, rulers who don't obey, hostile Jerusalem, healing the blind, the coming Kingdom—these themes of Luke 18:1-19:10 are also the repeated themes found throughout the pages of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve.

"By stressing Jesus' citation of Isaiah 61 and 58 at the beginning of Jesus' public ministry (Luke 4), Luke sets the pattern for understanding Jesus against the backdrop of the Prophets. In 18:1—19:10, the opening Parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge highlights the prophetic theme of justice, and the following Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector stresses the accompanying parallel theme of righteousness. As Jesus, the fulfillment of the OT prophetic promise, moves towards Jerusalem, he inaugurates justice as part of the "already" aspect of the Kingdom. As he calls people into the Kingdom, he insists that they come in humble faith, but also that they join him in working to establish justice (which is a critical prophetic part of the Kingdom)—especially in regard to the traditional OT vision of helping widows, the poor, and outcasts. As in the time of the Prophets, the current rulers refuse the call to justice, and thus do not enter into the Kingdom (and thus will face judgment). In contrast, two outcasts—a blind beggar and a tax collector—respond to Jesus and the call to believe in him. Thus as they are saved and are brought close to him, they join him in establishing the justice that the Prophets proclaimed as part of the coming Kingdom." [pp61-62]

If this perspective is true, then the 'go...sell... give' ethic is not even close to being an 'interim' ethic, but is rather a solid, OT/Tanakh ethic, incumbent on Israel's rulers and persistent in the prophetic corpus. It is a kingdom ethic--but of the more-mundane, theocratic kingdom of 'ideal Israel' in the OT. Again, this would NOT support the blogger's thesis, but would militate against it somewhat.

I can see how some might assume that this low-prep directive might be indicative of 'urgency' (maybe), but that is not how this is traditionally understood--especially in light of Matthew's remark (omitted by Luke): "for the laborer deserves his food". The connection is not about urgency or immediacy, but about ministerial support (as Jesus experienced Himself).

But other motives (such as reciprocity, trust-learning) are possibly involved--none of which suggest urgency/interim ethic:

"The apostles’ message, like their Lord’s, would be authenticated by miracles (Matt. 10:8; cf. 9:35). They were not to make elaborate provisions for their travel, thus avoiding the impression they were engaged in a business enterprise... As the apostles ministered, they in turn were to be ministered to by their recipients."  [Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1985). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Mt 10:5–15). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.]

"The Twelve are told not to take money or extra clothes with them on the mission. Rather, their needs are to be met by the anticipated hospitality and support of those who receive their message (cf. 10:11–13; 40–42). The message of the Kingdom is not for sale (cf. Acts 8:20), but those who receive it should also receive its messengers." [Turner, D., & Bock, D. L. (2005). Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol 11: Matthew and Mark (149). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.]

"The Twelve are not to take extra money or clothes with them on the mission. Their needs will be met by the anticipated support of those who receive their message (cf. 10:11–13a, 40–42). ... The proverbial saying about the worthiness of the worker probably distills biblical principles regarding day laborers and priests (Lev. 19:13; Num. 18:31; Deut. 24:15; 25:4; cf. Luke 10:7; 1 Cor. 9:9, 14; 1 Tim. 5:18). Hospitality to God’s messengers was viewed as a sacred duty (cf. Did. 11–13)."  [Turner, D. L. (2008). Matthew. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (271). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.]

"They are to travel light, like some other groups: (1) peasants, who often had only one cloak; (2) some traveling philosophers, called Cynics (probably represented as nearby as Tyre and the Decapolis, Gentile cities surrounding Galilee); (3) some prophets, like Elijah and John the Baptist. They are to be totally committed to their mission, not tied down with worldly concerns. The “bag” could have been used for begging (so the Cynics used it)... It is said that Essenes received such hospitality from fellow Essenes in various cities that they did not need to take provisions when they traveled." [Keener, C. S. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament (Mt 10:9–10). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.]

"The essence of this instruction is to travel light by not making special provision for their material needs while on the mission; here is an opportunity to exercise the practical trust in God’s provision which they have been taught in 6:25–33. If the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head (8:20), his representatives can expect no material security except in God. All the items listed are in Matthew objects of the verb “Do not get (ktaomai),” which does not naturally refer to what they are to carry but rather to fund-raising and acquiring special equipment for the journey. If they are not to go barefoot, basic clothing and equipment is assumed; it is additional provision which is forbidden. Money will not be needed, as they are to expect to receive appropriate hospitality en route. The “pack” (pēra) is a sort of traveling-bag, probably simply for carrying their food for the journey, though the pēra was also associated with Cynic itinerant teachers who used it when begging for food; the disciples will not need to carry, still less beg for, food. The prohibition of spare clothes and sandals probably suggests a mission of limited duration, though no doubt these too could have been supplied by well-wishers en route if necessary." [France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (384–385). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co.]

So, nothing here either.

This too doesn't look like an ethic specifically for the pre-eschaton period, because it looks like simply another way of expressing the self-denial motif. Even if it has tinges of martyrdom in it (although Luke used the term 'daily' for taking up the cross--suggesting that it was not about martyrdom), that is still no different from OT/Tanakh ethics--as the Hall of Fame in chapter 11 of the Book of Hebrews illustrates.

Life/soul and gain/lose can be variously understood (soteriology-wise, ultimate salvation or eternal rewards), of course, but even then the meaning is still close to proverbial.

So,

"The presence of “For” (γάρ, gar) indicates that 8:35 provides a rationale for accepting the invitation for discipleship found in 8:34. The verse involves several puns in that the crucial terms (“save,” “lose,” “life”) possess double meanings (contra Best 1981: 41). “Save” (σῴζω, sōzō) is used first in the negative sense of not denying oneself and then in the positive sense of achieving eternal salvation in the final day (cf. 8:38). “Lose” (ἀπολέσει, apolesei) is first used negatively in the sense of not acquiring eternal salvation and then in the positive sense of denying oneself and acquiring eternal salvation. “Life” (ψυχή, psychē) is first used to describe human, physical existence that does not deny personal goals and desires, that is, does not repent (1:15), and then it is used to describe one’s personal being, that is, the real self that continues to exist after death. “Losing one’s life” must be understood in the sense of denying oneself, taking up one’s cross, and following Jesus, as referred to in 8:34. It is described as taking place “for me [Jesus Christ, the Son of God] and the gospel.”

"8:36–37 Although some see 8:35–38 as consisting of a series of four consecutive reasons for obeying Jesus’s call to discipleship (Gundry 1993: 434, 439–40; Evans 2001: 24), it is best to see the “for” of 8:36 as explaining 8:35 and not as a separate reason supporting 8:34 (V. Taylor 1952: 382). The reason why one should be willing to “lose” one’s life is because of the surpassing worth of gaining eternal life. This is more valuable than possessing the whole world (cf. Matt. 4:8–9/Luke 4:5–6). To acquire all the world and yet lose one’s life, that is, not acquire eternal salvation, is a terrible loss. This is why one should be willing to lose one’s life “for [Jesus] and the gospel” (Mark 8:35). The common nature of this proverb can be seen in Ps. 49:7–8; 2 Bar. 51.15. Just as Mark 8:36 explains 8:35, so 8:37 explains 8:36. When you have lost your life (8:36), nothing can ever buy it back (8:37). Both questions in these two verses are left unanswered because they are so obvious. Both assume an answer like “Nothing at all!” [Stein, R. H. (2008). Mark. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (408–409). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. ]

Or,

"The believer who desires “to save his life” (psychē) is one who refuses to follow Christ by denying oneself and taking up one’s cross. He does not wish to give his life for the cause of Christ and therefore, he “will lose it.” The term lose (apollymi) signifies that a believer loses the fullness of his future life in the Kingdom when he lives in opposition to God’s declared will. Scripture teaches that a believer may experience loss and/or reward at the Judgment Seat of Christ (1 Cor 3:14–15; 2 Cor 5:9–10; 2 John 8). Rewards will enhance life in eternity (cf. 1 Tim 6:7–19). Thus, a believer who actually thinks he is saving his life by avoiding discipleship is actually destroying his opportunity for future rewards. ... When Christ says, “But whoever loses (apollymi) his life (psychē) for My sake and the gospel’s will save it,” He is describing the believer who follows after Him. Those who deny themselves and take up their cross to follow Christ may think they are losing their lives, but they are actually gaining them for eternity. When they get to the kingdom, their lives will be spiritually enhanced (cf. 2 Tim 4:8). Jesus wants His followers to know that as they enter into His sufferings, they can be confident of future reward (cf. 1 Pet 4:13).

8:36–37. Jesus uses an illustration within a question to reason why He should be followed. “What will it profit a man if he gains (lit., ‘to acquire by effort or investment’) the whole world, and loses his own soul?” The word soul (psychē) is the same Greek word translated life (psychē) in v 35 and should be rendered life in v 36. English translators intend for the word soul to mean that a person will lose his soul in hell. However, the context is clearly a discipleship/rewards context. ... Jesus takes the best-case scenario for His illustration. A man who gains the whole world is one who has lived for himself and has been successful in amassing great wealth. However, what profit will these vast riches be to him in eternity if he has lived only for himself? Such profit is worthless in eternity. He will leave all his wealth behind. As a believer he will enter eternity with a loss of the fullness of life he could have had. Christ’s second question in v 37 relates to this analogy. At the point the man enters into eternity, “what will a man give in exchange for his soul (psychē, ‘life’)?” What can he give to redo his life? His life is over and nothing can compensate for such a loss. Again, this relates to abundance in the life to come as a reward, and not deliverance from hell. A person should follow Christ because, although it is costly, he will preserve his life unto eternal reward and life enhancement." [Mershon, B., Jr. (2010). The Gospel according to Mark. In R. N. Wilkin (Ed.), The Grace New Testament Commentary (R. N. Wilkin, Ed.) (175–176). Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society.]

Commentators often point out that Jesus' remark echoes Psalms 49.7-8 (not an 'interim ethic'...smile):  "Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice, that he should live on forever and never see the pit."

To be such, it would have to somehow require disposition of wealth PRIOR to accepting the word of the kingdom. And the focus of the passage is on 'ordinary' problems of receptivity (e.g. lack of spiritual interest, persecution, preoccupation). These are not related to apocalyptic issues, but are standard problems we all face in living in the context of spiritual truth. This is still more about attitudes toward material goods than about ownership.

"The seed among thorns pictures those who get so encumbered with the basic enticements of this world that they produce no fruit. The seed again fails to accomplish its purpose. The terms used here do not appear frequently in the Synoptics. “Worries” is used elsewhere only in Luke 21:34; “lure” appears only here and in its parallel, Matt 13:22; and “desire” has no parallel akin to its use here, although it is used positively in Luke 22:15. The theme of riches and the problems of the rich are a concern (Matt 6:24–25; 19:23–24; Mark 10:25; Luke 1:53; 12:21). In this case, the failure lies with the distractions that prevent the person from benefiting from the word. The one thing the first three groups share is that none of them are fruitful. In the terms of the parable, they are all failures." [Turner, D., & Bock, D. L. (2005). Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol 11: Matthew and Mark (435). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.]

This is so strongly worded (and visualized) that I thought that it was a good candidate for 'urgency/interim ethic'. In other words, if this self-mutilation directive was unique to the period or somehow connected with something other than radical self-denial ('hating one's life')--which was NOT an urgency/interim ethic, then maybe we had found some support for the blogger's thesis.

So, let's look at some of the remarks from the commentators and from background studies, to see if anyone picked up on this thought/possibility:

"Jesus used the amputation of a hand or foot and of the gouging out of an eye as hyperboles here as he had previously in 5:29–30. As awful as these images are, the prospect of eternal punishment is worse. It should go without saying that this language is hypothetical as well as hyperbolical. One’s hands, feet, and eyes do not cause one to sin, and ridding oneself of them would not get at the root of sin, the heart (15:18–20). The point is that one must deal radically with one’s sinful tendencies (cf. Prov 4:23)." [Turner, D., & Bock, D. L. (2005). Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol 11: Matthew and Mark (237). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.]

"Many things may hinder one from believing in Christ. Hand (v 43), foot (v 45), and eye (v 47) refer to things one handles, places he goes, or things he sees that can cause him to stumble (cf. vv 43, 45, 47). Therefore Jesus commands to cut it off (hand or foot, vv 43, 45) or pluck it out (eye, v 47). Jesus is using hyperbole to make the point that drastic measures are sometimes required to remove hindrances to faith from an unbeliever’s life. Belonging to an unbelieving religious group, reading heretical books, attending a liberal, unbelieving school, or having close friends who are unbelievers, all can hinder faith in Christ. ...To turn from such hindrances may be painful, but Jesus reasons that “it is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands (feet, eyes) to go to hell.” It is better to believe in Jesus having cut out of one’s life things that a person once enjoyed, than to keep those things but never believe in Jesus." [Mershon, B., Jr. (2010). The Gospel according to Mark. In R. N. Wilkin (Ed.), The Grace New Testament Commentary (R. N. Wilkin, Ed.) (180–181). Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society.

"Following his source in Mark, Matthew adds to the warning against seducers a direct warning to the members of the church who are in a position to be seduced. While he repeats the sayings about severing one’s hand and eye that he has already used in 5:29–30 in connection with the second antithesis, he applies them differently. In the context of the second antithesis, Matt 5:29–30 is a warning against sexual seduction. Here the thought is more likely of a challenge to the little ones to avoid all contact with people who want to destroy their faith. The application in Matthew 5:29–30 is similar to rabbinic parallels that relate hands and eyes to sexual sins. Our text, on the other hand, is closer to Hellenistic parallels that compare the radical separation from bad friends or from evil in general to the work of a physician who may have to amputate parts of a body. That the hyperbole of severing a body part refers to real incidents—on the one hand to actual judgments against adulterers or violent persons, on the other to a physician’s practice—intensifies the power of the images and the urgency of the exhortation." [Luz, U. (2001). Matthew: A commentary (H. Koester, Ed.). Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (435–436). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

"For the poetical tracing of sins to different parts of the body cf. Pr. 6:16–19; Job 31:1, 5, and 7."(note: Proverbs 6.16-19 reads: There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.) [France, R. T. (2002). The Gospel of Mark: A commentary on the Greek text. New International Greek Testament Commentary (381). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.]

"Corporal punishment (cutting off appendages, e.g., Ex 21:24–25) is easier to bear than capital punishment, the decree of eternal death pronounced by the heavenly court. Some Jewish thinkers believed that one would be resurrected in exactly the form in which one had died (e.g., with limbs missing, as in the case of many martyrs) before being made whole, and Jesus employs this image." [Keener, C. S. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament (Mt 5:29–30). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.]

"Self-mutilation was prohibited in Judaism, so Jesus does not intend for one to carry this out literally. He means it is better to accept rigorous discipline now than be punished later." [Arnold, C. E. (2002). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary Volume 1: Matthew, Mark, Luke (261). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.]

"It was not a Palestinian custom to refer to an abstract activity but to the specific member of the body which is responsible for it. For this reason, Jesus speaks of the offending hand, foot and eye, all members which have highly important functions to fulfill. They characterize a man concretely as one who acts and who is responsible for his actions. The representation of the members as the acting subject (“if your hand leads you to offend”) belongs to the realism of Jewish thought. The radical demand that the hand or foot should be hacked off or the eye plucked out if they expose a man to the danger of final rejection juxtaposes the relative value of physical life with the absolute value of that authentic, imperishable life which is bestowed by God alone. Jesus did not hesitate to call for the renunciation of possessions (Ch. 10:21), family (Ch. 10:28f.) and of life itself (Ch. 8:34f.) if these things stood in the way of following him; here he demands the complete sacrifice of the sinful activity of the member. This was not a demand for physical self-mutilation, but in the strongest manner possible Jesus speaks of the costliest sacrifices. For the sake of the unconditional rule of God the members of the body must not be placed at the disposal of sinful desire. The sinful member must be renounced in order that the whole body be not cast into hell. Conversely, concern for the preservation of a hand, a leg or a foot must not lead a man to denial of the sovereignty of God or his allegiance to Jesus. This thought found heroic exemplification in the history of Jewish martyrdom (e.g. 2 Macc. 7:2–41, where the sacrifice of limbs and life is accepted in order to be true to God and to receive life from his hand) and was to play a crucial role in the martyr Church as well. Whatever in one’s life tempts one to be untrue to God must be discarded, promptly and decisively, even as a surgeon amputates a hand or a leg in order to save a life." [Lane, W. L. (1974). The Gospel of Mark. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (347–348). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.]

Nope--they all see it as expressions of loyalty and focus.

If you look at how this 'do not tell' motif is understood, you can see that it is more about Jesus' concern that that some fellow Jews MIGHT understand His ministry as an apocalyptic one, in which He has come to 'destroy the enemies':

"This is the last time in Matthew that Jesus enjoins silence concerning miraculous events (cf. 16:20 for the most recent time). This and other commands for silence aimed to avoid “superficial political messianism” (Carson 1984:388), which would have further exacerbated the enmity of the religious leaders. After Jesus had been vindicated by his resurrection, the true nature of his messianic ministry would become clearer, and the story of his miracles could be told in a proper context." [Turner, D., & Bock, D. L. (2005). Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol 11: Matthew and Mark (228). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.]

"The command to keep secret (9:9) the divine confirmation of Jesus’s messiahship/sonship at the transfiguration (9:7) parallels Jesus’s command to Peter not to tell anyone that he is the Messiah (8:30; cf. also 5:43; 7:36). Jesus’s particular understanding of the messianic role was so different from what was popularly held that a public declaration of his messiahship could only cause confusion and misunderstanding (see 8:30). Telling others what happened at the transfiguration before Jesus’s resurrection would also cause confusion, for the way of vindication and glory for the Son of Man was via the suffering of the cross (8:31). It was already clear that the disciples thought that the messiahship of the Christ did not or could not involve a cross (8:32), and some of Mark’s readers may have had a similar misunderstanding. However, Good Friday must precede the fulfillment of what the transfiguration points to. The Son of Man must first give his life as a ransom for many (10:45) before he comes in glory (8:38). The tradition of the transfiguration first became known to the followers of Jesus (and the other disciples) after the resurrection. Only then would it make sense." [Stein, R. H. (2008). Mark. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (423–424). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.]

"not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. The disciples were not yet ready to preach Jesus because they didn’t yet appreciate precisely how he fit into God’s plan. Jesus told them to remain silent until the Son of Man (that is, Jesus) had risen, a remark that echoes 8:31. The “silence” motif reaches from 1:25 to as recently as 8:29." [Turner, D., & Bock, D. L. (2005). Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol 11: Matthew and Mark (475). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

"It quickly becomes apparent that the disciples did not understand the significance of the transfiguration. For this very reason Jesus demanded silence. Verse 9 is the last injunction to silence in Mark, it is the only one that gives a reason for the command, and it places a time limit on the “secret.” Therefore this verse is the key to understanding all the commands of silence. Until Jesus had died and had been raised, his true identity and significance could not be known. He could not be proclaimed until then. Just as people pondered whether John was the Christ (cf. Luke 3:15), so, according to Mark, Jesus intended that during his lifetime they should ponder whether he was the Christ. The “messianic secret” was not the invention of Mark but the intention of Jesus." [Brooks, J. A. (1991). Vol. 23: Mark. The New American Commentary (143). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.]

"The principal point here is that if the passion provides a vital element of Jesus’ messianic identity and mission (as in 8:31–38), then the glory of the transfiguration cannot be shared until it can be proclaimed in the light of the passion, which is its proper context." [Evans, C. A. (2001). Vol. 34B: Mark 8:27–16:20. Word Biblical Commentary (43). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]

Nothing here.

The passage divides fairly cleanly into two parts: (1) Do not worry about mundane needs, since God will provide these as you 'strive for' the kingdom and righteousness (Mt 6.25-33; LK 12.22-31) and (2) invest in spiritual treasures in heaven, which cannot be affected by the ravages of this world (Mt 6.19-21; Lk 32-34) . If either of these directives are based upon some expression of end-of-all-things-within-40-years, then we might have some data to support the hypothesis.

The do-not-worry section has Jesus giving reasons for them not to worry. Bock [BECNT, Luke] delineates these as he comments through the passage:

"Jesus gives a reason (γάρ, gar) for his call not to worry. He offers a two-part assertion that sounds like a proverb: life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing. The point seems to be that, since there is more to life than food and clothing, to be overly concerned with them is to miss life’s important concern—a relationship with God (1 Tim. 6:6–19). The illustrations of nature in 12:24, 27, 28 operate on the level of food (ravens) and clothing (lilies and grass). God will care for these basics. Food and clothing only sustain and shield us. As Danker (1988: 249) says, “Living is more than having.” The Lord’s Prayer shows the proper relationship (11:3–4). Daily needs are to be placed in God’s hands and seen in relationship to him (Ernst 1977: 402), which is similar to the statement of 4:4 that people do not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from God (1 Pet. 5:7; Marshall 1978: 526).

"The first reason was that life consists of more than food and clothing. The second was that God cares for people in his creation.

"Continuing his appeal not to worry, Jesus offers a practical objection: worrying is useless. This is the third reason that Jesus offers (Marshall 1978: 527).

"Jesus develops his rationale about the pointlessness of worrying: if a person cannot do a little thing like adding a little time to one’s life span, then why worry about other matters that may well be beyond one’s control and will not add to one’s life.

"Having illustrated his point, Jesus returns to his basic exhortation of 12:22: disciples are not to be anxious about basic needs like food and drink. The hapax legomenon μετεωρίζεσθε (meteōrizesthe) normally means “to be lifted up, be puffed up” and can mean “to be overbearing.” It is a graphic picture of hovering between hope and fear, between heaven and earth (Danker 1988: 251). The picture is of anxious, emotional insecurity and instability as it races between various emotions. An idiomatic equivalent might be “to get worked up” over something. One who recognizes that God cares can be spared such anxious mood swings.

"Now comes the positive exhortation. What is to be the disciple’s priority? Jesus puts it simply: seek God’s kingdom. The present tense ζητεῖτε (zēteite, seek) indicates that this is to be the disciple’s habit; that is, “keep seeking his kingdom.” Disciples are to be engaged in the pursuit of representing God on earth. They are to seek God’s rule (K. Schmidt, TDNT 1:588). God’s followers are to respond to his call to walk as he desires. Followers also share in the spiritual benefits that come from such a walk (11:2). God’s commitment to disciples is to offer care, to provide fundamental things such as food and shelter. The reference to “the things added” alludes to life’s basics, not vast material gain. This limitation is indicated by Luke 12 as a whole. But to use guilt as a tactic against those who have material holdings is not the point of such a verse either (though concern for how such holdings are used is indicated by 12:32). The point is simply that God promises to provide basic needs for his disciples. Matthew 6:33 has a longer form of this saying. He speaks of seeking “first” God’s kingdom “and his righteousness,” and “all” these things shall be added to you. These are not different ideas, since to seek his kingdom is to seek to live in a way that honors God’s presence and rule."

So, the basic idea then has nothing really to do with urgency/interim ethics, but with simple priorities and focus--befitting those who seek to follow and serve the Lord Jesus:

"Jesus knew that material things often occupy the thoughts of most people, much of the time. Luke had already drawn attention to this tendency to absorption in material issues in the parable of the sower (8:11–15; cf. Matt 13:18–23; Mark 4:13–20). In the interpretation of that parable, disciples are warned that it is possible for the divine word to be “crowded out” or “choked” by the cares and riches and pleasures of this life (8:14b). The result of this stifling is the sad failure to achieve their expected potential: “And so they never grow into maturity” (8:14c). The exercise of patience was required to bring forth this productive, excellent fruit from the good soil: “The seeds that fell on the good soil represent honest, good-hearted people who hear God’s word, cling to it, and patiently produce a huge harvest” (8:15). Here, we have further teaching and a pertinent reminder that life consists of far more than food and clothing (12:23). Admittedly, these items are always needed by people, especially by those who are barely making ends meet in an economy where the rich are getting richer and the poor are being badly oppressed and exploited. But Jesus taught his followers not to worry about everyday life." [Trites, A. A., & William J. Larkin. (2006). Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol 12: The Gospel of Luke and Acts (192–193). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.]

Then comes the second part about 'spiritual treasures in heaven'. Only Luke as the 'sell possessions', but the thrust of both versions is the same--it is about Christ-like generosity and serving others, and not about how 'short the time is'. It does have a future aspect (i.e. rewards in heaven)--and it encourages that perspective--but the reality of future rewards for righteousness was much, much older than Jesus ministry on earth (cf. the Hall of Fame in Hebrews 11).

"Jesus explains the rationale for his exhortation with a proverbial saying about loyalty. One is loyal to the things one values most. The references to the heart and to treasure are figurative for “priorities” and “that which is valued.” If one values people, then one will work to meet their needs. If one values self, then one will collect possessions that perish. As Danker (1972: 152) says, “If one’s bank deposit is made in Heaven First National, then the real choices of a man’s life will be governed by that perspective.” If so, one will invest in others. " [Bock, D. L. (1996). Luke Volume 2: 9:51–24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (1167–1168). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.]

"Luke highlighted the open-handed generosity taught by Jesus. In a world filled with real need, it was incumbent upon those who would follow the “man from Nazareth” to reach out in compassion and minister to those in distress (12:33–34). Instead of just being concerned to build up a store of treasure for oneself (as in the parable of the rich fool, 12:13–21), there was to be a willingness to part with possessions in order to meet the pressing needs of others, a point stressed by Jesus and buttressed by wonderful promises of blessing in the good time coming (Matt 19:29). In the stories of Acts, we see striking examples of people like Barnabas, the generous-hearted man from Cyprus who willingly shared his possessions for the sake of needy members of the Jerusalem church (Acts 4:34–37). By contrast, there were also people like Ananias and Sapphira who fell into the trap of duplicity; they wanted to appear to be generous, and so they deceptively inflated their account of what they had given. Their sad hypocrisy was revealed and exposed, with sobering results (Acts 5:1–11). By contrast, genuine concern on the part of disciples to meet the down-to-earth needs of people in the present life is to be viewed in the light of eternity, for “the purses of heaven never get old or develop holes” (12:33; cf. 6:38) Jesus spoke the revealing and exposing truth: “Wherever your treasure is, there the desires of your heart will also be” (12:34). If one’s heart is on the eternal treasures, they will be more giving during their life on earth." [Trites, A. A., & William J. Larkin. (2006). Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol 12: The Gospel of Luke and Acts (194). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.]

" Jesus points the disciples to permanent treasure. He exhorts them to sell their possessions and offer alms, that is, give charitably to the poor. Pursuing the kingdom means caring for others, rather than for self. The security that one has in God frees one to be generous with possessions and to be generous with others (L. Johnson 1977: 155). Alms were often regarded as an act of piety, both in the NT and in Judaism. To show concern for others rather than for oneself is at the heart of Jesus’ teaching, where love for others has a high place. To give up possessions to aid the poor shows the highest degree of such commitments. ... The value of such action is that its significance can never be taken away or destroyed. The figurative reference to purses that do not grow old alludes to the money bag (βαλλάντιον, ballantion) used by business owners (Rengstorf, TDNT 1:525–26; BAGD 130; BAA 263; only in Luke’s Gospel: 10:4; here; 22:35, 36). The picture of the thief and the moth suggests that nothing can affect the quality of such work. Moths are a common figure for riches that are naturally spoiled, since the little creatures can ruin expensive clothes. They depict decay (Marshall 1978: 532; Bauernfeind, TDNT 7:275–77). Heavenly treasure will not fail or spoil, unlike its earthly counterpart, which can disappear in a fleeting moment because it stays bolted to earth upon death. The picture is of heavenly treasure laid in nonperishable (ἀνέκλειπτον, anekleipton; BAGD 64; BAA 127; a NT hapax legomenon) receptacles. Such treasure is laid up in heaven for the one who cares for those in need. The treasure refers to the benefits of being faithful to God, so that one stores up God’s pleasure by having done his will. This faithfulness reaps rich, everlasting reward as a result (1 Cor. 3:10–15; 2 Cor. 5:10). God notices where people place their accounts, and death does not close them. Lack of attachment to possessions is a constant NT theme (1 Cor. 7:30; 1 Tim. 6:7–19; Luke 14:33 [an exposition of 12:33]; Plummer 1896: 329). The stress is not on literally selling all, but on making use of one’s resources in a way that benefits others. Zacchaeus is the positive example of how resources are to be used (19:1–10). ... This exhortation is given here because of the persecution a disciple will face. This opposition might lead to martyrdom or the destruction of one’s possessions. To be tied to possessions might cause a disciple to be divided in allegiance. Others attribute the remarks to an eschatological expectation of the kingdom’s nearness, but this is not clear (Luce 1933: 233). Acts 2 and 4 show that this exhortation was put into practice in Jerusalem, but it was not insisted upon. Rather, it was undertaken voluntarily, as seen in Peter’s recognition of Ananias and Sapphira’s right to keep some proceeds (Acts 5). This response to Jesus’ teaching shows that the expression probably addressed an attitude of readiness to give over all into God’s service. ... Matthew 6:19–21 is similar in concept, though in Luke this verse has very distinct wording. Where Matthew speaks of laying up treasure as the main exhortation, Luke has a direct, nonfigurative command to sell possessions and give alms. The Lucan command is summarized by the aorist tense and calls for decisive action (T. Schmidt 1987: 148). Both accounts, however, share the next verse’s proverbial expression: where your treasure is, there your heart is also. Distinct sayings are more than likely." [Bock, D. L. (1996). Luke Volume 2: 9:51–24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (1166–1167). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

The future-oriented 'rewards' aspect is not connected to the 'eschatological crisis' of the short-term, last-days scenario, but rather to the more general future-rewards generosity of God. This directive (to sell and give) was not a 'requirement' for end-time believers, but was a result of God's gift of His Spirit to the church.

"Others attribute the remarks to an eschatological expectation of the kingdom’s nearness, but this is not clear (Luce 1933: 233). Acts 2 and 4 show that this exhortation was put into practice in Jerusalem, but it was not insisted upon. Rather, it was undertaken voluntarily, as seen in Peter’s recognition of Ananias and Sapphira’s right to keep some proceeds (Acts 5). This response to Jesus’ teaching shows that the expression probably addressed an attitude of readiness to give over all into God’s service. ... Matthew 6:19–21 is similar in concept, though in Luke this verse has very distinct wording. Where Matthew speaks of laying up treasure as the main exhortation, Luke has a direct, nonfigurative command to sell possessions and give alms. " [Bock, D. L. (1996). Luke Volume 2: 9:51–24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (1166–1167). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

"In a way v. 34 sums it all up. The heart as the seat of human yearning must have its proper attraction: a heavenly treasure. The maxim does not tell the reader what that treasure is or even why it lasts; it suggests rather why the seeking for the kingdom can find an obstacle in the seeking for food, drink, and clothing—attractions that seduce. Even though the maxim in itself is devoid of an eschatological dimension, yet in the context it assumes one; however, that background is not the eschatological crisis, but the fate of the individual after death (so W. Pesch, “Zur Exegese,” 374). In such a context one must guard that the heart is not seduced by earthly possessions." [Fitzmyer, J. A., S.J. (2008). Vol. 28A: The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV: Introduction, translation, and notes. Anchor Yale Bible (982). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.]

And the parallel from the very non-apocalyptic Gospel of Thomas 76.3 (Nag Hammadi II 2) supports the position that it was not understood as a statement about the eschatological crisis:

You too search for his treasure which does not perish, which stays where moth cannot reach (it) to eat (it) nor worm deface (it).

[The critical edition of Q: Synopsis including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French translations of Q and Thomas. 2000 (J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann & J. S. Kloppenborg, Ed.). Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis; Leuven: Fortress Press; Peeters.]

This motif of repayment-after-death shows up often in Jesus' teachings, and it is not correlated to an imminent Return at all. Cf Luke 14:12-14:

He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. 13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”  (Lk 14:12–14).

Contrary to the hypothesis--btw--is the fact that the Lukan version is stronger than the (earlier) Synoptics--when it should be the other way around:

"Sell your possessions and give to those in need. Wealth and poverty are prominent themes in the synoptic Gospels, but not in John’s Gospel. While Mark has some material on the subject (e.g., Mark 12:41–44), the “vast majority of the teaching is found in Q material, blocks of which occur in Matthew 6 and Luke 6, 12, and 16. Of the two Gospels, Luke has both more material than Matthew and a stronger form of the material which both include. For example, Luke includes woes along with his Beatitudes (6:20–26), which sharpen the teaching by explicitly stating the obverse. Therefore, it can be said fairly that Luke has a special interest in the topic, although the same general attitude is shared by Matthew and perhaps also by Mark. The three Evangelists give a consistent picture of Jesus’ attitude toward wealth and poverty” (DJG 705)." [Trites, A. A., & William J. Larkin. (2006). Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol 12: The Gospel of Luke and Acts (192). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.]

And, finally, we should note that this 'treasures' motif pre-dates the earthly ministry of Jesus. It can be found in the intertestamental literature:

"A treasure in heaven (12:33). Various Jewish texts speak of good works (such as almsgiving) as a means of storing up true treasures. Sirach says, “Lose your silver for the sake of a brother or a friend, and do not let it rust under a stone and be lost. Lay up your treasure according to the commandments of the Most High, and it will profit you more than gold” (Sir. 29:10–11)." [Arnold, C. E. (2002). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary Volume 1: Matthew, Mark, Luke (430). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

"...for those who act in accordance with truth will prosper in all their activities. To all those who practice righteousness 7 give alms from your possessions, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from anyone who is poor, and the face of God will not be turned away from you. 8 If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. 9 So you will be laying up a good treasure for yourself against the day of necessity. 10 For almsgiving delivers from death and keeps you from going into the Darkness. 11 Indeed, almsgiving, for all who practice it, is an excellent offering in the presence of the Most High. " [The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Tobit 4:6–11). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.]

And has parallels in pagan philosophy--which is NOT rooted in Jewish apocalyptic (smile):

"If a person seeks such heavenly treasure, the implication is that his heart, i.e. his affections, is directed in the right way, whereas if a person piles up earthly treasure, the evidence shows that his affections are earthbound and hence his heart is not truly related to God. Hence the saying provides a motive for the preceding command, by showing that the person who continues to hold on to earthly wealth and does not fulfil the command in v. 33 is not really seeking after the kingdom of God. The two attitudes are mutually exclusive. The saying has parallels in pagan philosophy (Epictetus II, 22, 19; Sentences of Sextus, 136). Luke has the plural form of the personal pronoun, diff. Mt., which is grammatically better and indicates the universal application of the saying." [Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke: A commentary on the Greek text. New International Greek Testament Commentary (532). Exeter: Paternoster Press.]

So, there seems to be nothing here either.

But this looks more like the other 'focus' or 'priority' or 'loyalty' or 'watch out for materialism' passages, in which the eternal ethic of spiritual centeredness is in focus (in keeping with the Greatest Commandment--Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all and all and all... would that we little believers could actually do that more and more and more in our lives....sigh).

"Divided loyalty is impossible—a disciple cannot be the loyal slave of both God (producing heavenly treasure) and wealth (producing earthly treasure). God’s kingdom demands exclusive loyalty, as Jesus reminded Satan (4:10, citing Deut. 6:13). One’s devotion to it must be single-minded." [Turner, D. L. (2008). Matthew. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (198). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.]

"Against those who might protest that they can accumulate both spiritual and earthly treasures, Jesus replies that they have only two options. They must choose between competing loyalties. “Master” suggests a slaveowner who required total allegiance. People could not serve two masters in the way in which people today often work two jobs. “Money” is more literally mammon, referring to all of a person’s material resources. Of course, many people do try to cherish both God and mammon, but ultimately only one will be chosen. The other will be “hated,” even if only by neglect. “Love” and “hate” in Semitic thought are often roughly equivalent to choose and not choose. ... Many perceptive observers have sensed that the greatest danger to Western Christianity is not, as is sometimes alleged, prevailing ideologies such as Marxism, Islam, the New Age movement or humanism but rather the all-pervasive materialism of our affluent culture. We try so hard to create heaven on earth and to throw in Christianity when convenient as another small addition to the so-called good life. Jesus proclaims that unless we are willing to serve him wholeheartedly in every area of life, but particularly with our material resources, we cannot claim to be serving him at all (cf. under 8:18–22)." [Blomberg, C. (1992). Vol. 22: Matthew. The New American Commentary (124). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.]

"On the other hand, then, is the opposite, “serving Mammon,” a pseudo-religious captivation by materialism. The term “mammon” (μαμμωνᾶς) is interesting for a number of reasons. Originally an Aramaic term, ממון, in its Greek form it designates “wealth” and “property” as a personified and demonic force.2 The name recognizes the religious structure of materialism. Antiquity had long before recognized that the relentless pursuit of money and possessions is tantamount to the worship of a pseudo-deity. Naming this pseudo-deity by a foreign name indicates its demonic and even magical character. Serving this Mammon results in self-enslavement; one has lost control. To many of those who are in the service of this pseudo-deity, the worship of the true God may appear to be compatible. Things could be neatly arranged: serving materialistic goals in the secular world, and serving God in the religious world. Such a combination, popular as it may be, however, renders the service of the true God impossible. Once Mammon is granted power, the demands by this pseudo-god crowd out everything else, and the worship of God becomes an empty gesture. The problem is not, therefore, spending money or owning property, but becoming possessed by Mammon’s demonic powers. ...What ethical conclusion then does one draw from it? One must choose: one can either serve God in freedom or serve Mammon in slavery. One cannot do both because theologically they are antithetical and absolutely irreconcilable. Ethically, one is obliged to serve God in the proper ways. What then is the consequence for one’s handling of money and possessions? The message is that money and property are not just that, but that they can easily ensnare and possess people. They exercise power that is none other than what we call materialism. Materialism, however, is a pseudo-religious way of life, the service of a pseudo-god identified by the name Mammon. Contrary to expectations, Mammon does not liberate but enslave. Discipleship of Jesus is clearly incompatible with such entrapment by Mammon. How is one to prevent it? The answer given in the SM is not that money or ownership of property is by itself evil. Rather, the SM presupposes that the disciples have possessions. [Footnote there: SM/Matt 6:24 par. may reflect the position held by the historical Jesus concerning wealth (cf. also Luke 14:33; Mark 10:17–22 par.). This would imply that Jesus did not require total poverty for everyone, but only for those whom he recognized as being in the grip of Mammon.] How else could they be exhorted to give alms? The issue is not the money but the service of Mammon and the enslavement of those who are caught up in it. That enslavement makes money and possessions a trap of self-destruction. The worship of the one God is the best means of keeping oneself free from such entrapment, once one recognizes that a clear choice has to be made." [Betz, H. D. (1995). The Sermon on the mount: A commentary on the Sermon on the mount, including the Sermon on the plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49) (A. Y. Collins, Ed.). Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (458–459). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

So, this is simply another --but strong--restatement of the basic principle of the Greatest Commandment, and not something 'interim'.