The first part is obviously correct, but it breaks down towards the end. The use of the term ,"Kingdom" does not in any manner suggest that there would be a hierarchy between humans, though it suggests of course that God is king. I would point you towards Kant's "Kingdom of Ends", where there is not a strict hierarchy and the defining trait of society is that everyone is treated as being an end in and of themselves that they themselves decide. Kant is also a good writer on the subject of the authority of God, as he argues (like many Christians before and after) that being good must not depend on the authority of the dictates of God but on the door's own moral reasoning, and if God said to do wrong (though He wouldn't), He must be disobeyed because there is no teleological suspension of the ethical.

Here is a bit on that last part and the obvious objection one might raise about the Binding of Isaac. tldr Abraham's conviction was praiseworthy but his reasoning was inadequate, a conclusion normal people would probably agree with today.

In short, I think Jesus can coherently be interpreted as more progressive than you give him credit for.