Thus, the last will appear to be first, and the first appear to be last. Jesus’ teachings (parables) about the kingdom must have been received in shock by his listeners, to say the least. And if they did, then the desired effect was achieved. Jesus intended his teachings about the kingdom to challenge his listeners into re-thinking their knowledge and understanding of the kingdom. The parable that we read about in our Gospel passage for today is certainly among those teachings of Jesus that was meant to challenge his audience’s perception of the kingdom.  
The evangelist Matthew was writing to a predominantly but not exclusive Jewish audience. And as was the case with other communities that had come to embrace the new way (of Jesus the Nazorene), growing pains had begun to emerge between members of Jewish background and those who were of Gentile origin. The Gospel of inclusivity and equality that was the bedrock of this new way appears to have upset those members who were of Jewish origin. How could it be that one who had been a believer all his /her life (Christian of Jewish background) be equal to a convert who, to make matters worse, was not required to observe some of the traditions of the parent faith/religion (cf. Acts 15:22-29)? In this new kingdom inaugurated by Jesus, shouldn’t Christians of Jewish origin – because of them having one foot already in the kingdom - have an “upper hand” vis-à-vis the gentiles? 
Whereas the parable of the laborers in the vineyard can be wrongly interpreted as pointing to the reversal of fortunes in the kingdom, in reality, the parable speaks about the generous, inclusive nature of God (and by extension of the kingdom). In human eyes, the equal treatment of the laborers by the landowner at the end of the day was not fair to those hired early in the morning. In matters of fairness and justice, their complaint was justifiable. For one can argue that the same spirit of generosity that had led the owner of the garden to pay the latecomers a full day's wage should have also led him to add some form of gratuity to those who spent the entire day laboring in his vineyard, their agreed upon wages notwithstanding. From a purely human standpoint, those who were hired early in the morning were not treated fairly by the landowner and were within their rights to grumble. But amidst all these accusations of unfairness by one party, the landowner stood his ground and insisted that he was only being generous with his possessions. 
The generosity of the landowner should be discerned and understood, not in the manner in which he dealt with those who worked for only an hour, but in how he treated all his laborers. His act of generosity should be seen in his willingness to hire and let the laborers work in his vineyard, going as far as taking the initiative to go out and look for them. He sought them out because he wanted to share with them his blessings. His second act of generosity should be seen in him agreeing with the laborers on what he was going to pay them. He did not want to take advantage of them simply because they needed the job. His third act of generosity was his decision to pay those who had worked for only an hour the same wage as those who worked the entire day, a move that was deemed unjust and unfair by those who worked the entire day. Whatever the grumbling laborers thought of him, he landowner exercised his right of doing as he saw fit with his wealth. And such, Jesus reminds us, is how God handles the affairs of the kingdom. 
In the kingdom of God, there is no being first or being last. All those who belong to the kingdom are treated as equals by God, for all are sons and daughters of God, brothers and sisters one to another. The values of the kingdom are so far removed from the values of the world and any attempt to interpret the former by the standards of the latter only leads to mischaracterization of the kingdom and its values. For in the kingdom, it is not us who decide what is good for us but rather God himself.