Yes, it does. That is one way to look at sin. As I said and proved to you, the Bible uses many different terms and vantage points to look at sin, some regarding its causes, others its nature, and still others its consequences. We certainly don't ignore all of Scripture to say, "What it says in this one verse is all it says about sin." In this case, John is defining some of the character of sin. It has been John's point that we should pursue righteousness, and sin is set as opposite of righteousness, where righteousness is conforming to God's ways and sin is ignoring God's ways. Righteousness is pursuing what is right and good; sin is pursuing what is wrong and godless. The Old Testament and Judaism saw sin as the transgression of God's law (category 2C in the previous post).

And again I reiterate: What does any of this have to do with Numbers 15.15-16? Your question was, "Do we still have to follow Num. 15.15-16 today?"

But doesn’t 1 John 3:4 say that sin is being lawless?

That's a different question. "Sin" is not part of these verses. But I'll still answer. Sin is a broad term that has been variously defined. One is that sin is non-conformity to the moral law of God—yet sin goes much deeper than God's law because it goes back to our relationship with a personal God. Sin has been defined as rebellion against the will of God for one's life—yet this does not reveal whether sin is a state, an act, or a condition. Sin has been described as selfishness. Yet much more is involved in sin than is implied in the simple term selfishness. Sin has been described as an act, disposition, or state that is morally wrong. This is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't take into account one's relation to God. It is more a definition of evil than of sin. Sin has been defined as a breach of relations between the sinner and God—yet more is involved in sin that is connoted by even all these.

The Bible uses many different terms to denote sin. Some focus on its causes, others on its nature, and still others on its consequences.

1. Sin defined by its causes

A. Ignorance. Rom. 1.13; 2 Cor. 6.9; Gal. 1.22; Acts 3.17; 17.30; Eph. 4.18; 1 Pet. 1.14; Heb. 9.7.
B. Error. Ezk. 34.6; Isa. 28.7; 1 Sam. 26.21; Ps. 119.67; Eccl. 10.5; Job 12.16 et al.
C. Inattention. Rom. 5.19; 2 Cor. 10.6; Heb. 2.2-3; Mt. 18.17; Mk. 5.36.

2. Sin defined by its character

A. Missing the mark: a decision to fail. Gk: hamartano. Occurs multiple hundreds of times in Scripture.
B. Irreligion; impiety. Gk. asebeia, adikia, anomos. Dozens of references.
C. Transgression. Heb. ‘abar: hundreds of occurrences. Gk. parabaino.
D. Iniquity or lack of integrity. Lev. 19.15 et al.
E. Rebellion. Heb. pasha’, marah. Gk. apeitheia, aphistemi, apostasia.
F. Treachery. Heb. ma’al, bagad. Gk. parapipto.
G. Perversion. Heb. awah.
H. Abomination. Heb. to’ebah.

3. Sin defined by its results/consequences

A. Agitation of restlessness. Heb. resha’.
B. Evil or badness. Heb. ra’.
C. Guilt. Heb. ‘asham.

The root of sin is independence—declaring ourselves the arbiters of right and wrong, truth and falseness, making ourselves god of our own lives.

Ok. Then what does the Bible define sin as?

No, it doesn't. This “lasting ordinance” pertained to their covenant, in relationship to the Temple, in the context of theocracy. When Israel/Judah fell (586 BC), these laws became defunct with it. It would be like saying, should America fall one day, would we or any other future person still live by our constitution and Bill of Rights? Of course not. That's for us. But aren't there good, noble, and moral ideas in it? Sure there are, but such things are defunct when the nation falls.

In addition, as Dr. John Walton writes, [quote]"The Torah has no role apart from the sanctuary—the place of YHWH’s presence from which He rules over His people as He dwells among them in a covenant relationship. The Torah is therefore contingent on the tabernacle/temple—the establishment of God’s presence among the Israelites. The Torah is given so that God’s covenant people Israel can order their lives and society in a way that will retain YHWH’s favor and His presence residing among them. It is designed to provide examples of covenant order and to help Israel understand how they can bring honor, rather than shame, to the name (that is, the reputation) of YHWH because they have been identified with Him by being designated as holy. As they are faithful to the covenant by heeding the wisdom of the Torah, they will preserve God’s presence among them. Failure to establish covenant order will result in YHWH’s departure, to their great loss. Furthermore, this failure will expose them to harm, not only from enemies that YHWH would send to discipline them, but also from YHWH Himself, who fulfills the responsibilities of a suzerain against rebellious vassals.

"In accordance with this interpretation, we might propose the possibility that YHWH’s ultimate reason for coming down to the top of Mt. Sinai is not to deliver the Torah; rather, He descends to the mountain to inaugurate the construction of the Tabernacle as a place of His presence. If this is so, the primary objective was not Torah. The Tabernacle was not constructed to support Torah. The ultimate objective was for God to give instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle so that YHWH could come to reside among His people. The covenant is preparatory for the tabernacle/temple, and the Torah gives wisdom for living in and retaining the presence of God. This idea finds support in the layout of the book of Exodus, in which the reference to the tablets frames the tabernacle instructions. From this we might consider that the tablets may have included the instructions for the Tabernacle and perhaps even a diagram of its design."[/quote]

Does Numbers 15:15-16 apply to us today? If it’s a lasting ordinance does that mean we should be following the law still - not for salvation but because we love YHWH?