There is a teaching, “”In the place where penitents stand, the completely righteous do not stand.” It means that a sinner who has repented has a more elevated position than someone who has been fully righteous.
This sounds terribly unfair. Someone who has spent spent his whole life obeying the rules is not as respected as someone who has sinned and repented. How could this be just?
I can see a few possibilities. For one, a person who considers himself to be wholly righteous might not, in fact, be as righteous as he thinks. He may have allowed himself to stray in some respects – maybe not huge errors, but errors all the same. Maybe he’s not so righteous after all.
It also might discourage a person from becoming prideful about their righteousness. You may be righteous, but that sinner who repented is still respected.
Also, a person who has been accustomed to sinning may have a more difficult time resisting it. A person who has never sinned doesn’t know the attraction that sins could exert. Consider something similar to addiction. A person who has never taken a drink or a drug is better able to resist than someone who has become addicted.
Finally, this attitude greatly encourages a person to repent. If he thinks he’ll be regarded as lowly and wicked, he might not dare to return. He wouldn’t want to be sneered at by the people who (supposedly) have never done wrong. But if he knows that he would be welcomed back, then he might have a greater incentive to turn away from his misdeeds.
Naturally, not every righteous person likes this teaching, and many try to explain it away. But I think it’s probably a wholesome attitude to have, because honestly, I don’t know anyone who hasn’t done at least a few things wrong.