Why do the SDA abstain from pork?

Historically, the SDA denomination started as an end-of-days religious movement, predicting that Jesus would return on one date - which came and passed - and then another date - which came and passed. Searching for an explanation as to why Jesus hadn't returned as predicted, one explanation was that they weren't holy enough and they needed to abstain from things like alcohol and pork.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerism#Post-Great_Disappointment_Millerism

The distinction between clean and unclean existed from before the flood which is at least 1000 years prior to Moses. We find in Genesis:

Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

It should be noted that God does not define what is a clean beast and what is unclean here. He simply states it as a known fact. This clearly shows that Noah knew which animals were clean and which were unclean. Further:

Gen 8:20 And Noah built an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Only clean animals were offered as sacrifices. And God accepts only clean animals. Abel, the son of Adam offered sacrifice. So, if only clean animals can be offered, then the distinction between clean and unclean should have existed from the time of Abel, at the least, if not from Adam.

Thus, as Ray Butterworth has beautifully brought out, clean and unclean animals were not a part of the ceremonial laws. It preexisted the ceremonial laws just like the Sabbath (from Genesis 2) and the Tithe(first mentioned as offered by Abraham). The reason for the command to not consume these animals was given in Leviticus and because the Israelites had forgotten a lot of the values their fathers held due to the Egyptian slavery, God reiterated them here.

That said, the ceremonial laws contained certain foods and drinks:

1. During the feast of unleavened bread - only unleavened bread can be consumed
2. Feast of Passover involved eating the Passover lamb
3. Feast of Pentecost involved waving the wheat harvested before the Lord (food again)
4. The day of atonement involved fasting and afflicting the soul for the sins committed.

Thus, although the distinction between the clean and unclean was not a part of ceremonial law and preexisted it and is still in effect, there are some ceremonial laws concerning foods and drinks which passed away at the cross. This is because Christ has entered into the real tabernacle in Heaven to minister in the heavenly sanctuary.

Heb 8:1,2 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

The whole book of Hebrews is an exposition of the Heavenly Sanctuary. Thus the ceremonies of the earthly sanctuary which were to be repeated every year were abolished.

P.S.: It is interesting to note that although the council at Jerusalem decided that the Gentiles should not be forced to undergo circumcision or follow ceremonial laws, they were given 4 specific commands to follow:

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

They were to abstain from:

1. Meats offered to idols
2. Eating blood
3. Eating things strangled
4. Fornication

You see, three out of the four dealt with food. This shows that the early Christians treated food as an important part of their religion.

The conclusion, "It stands to reason that food was classified under the ceremonial law", isn't reason, it's illogic.

A pile of rotting garbage is unfit for use in Hindu ceremonies. Christians are not obliged to observe Hindu ceremonies. Therefore it is okay for Christians to eat a pile of rotting garbage.

Just because something isn't fit for ceremonial use doesn't mean that it is fit for eating in other circumstances.

The statement "it is ceremonially unclean", is a blatant mistranslation of Leviticus 11:4. Almost every other translation says "it is unclean".

The original Hebrew itself simply says "it is unclean", with no mention of anything like "ceremonially".

(That addition must be the result of wishful thinking on the part of NIV translators that like their bacon.)

Hebrews 9:8 talks about the use of food in ceremonies, and how those ceremonies served as a prophetic symbol of Christ's sacrifice and so are no longer required.

But again that a ceremony is no longer required has nothing to do with the fact that some meat is intrinsically fit to eat and some isn't.

"why then do the SDA still maintain that this prohibition concerning these foods is still binding?"

Obviously because there is no reason to believe otherwise.