Luke,
You ask, "Can you explain what you mean by:"
"There is actually very little unambiguous evidence from the text of the Scripture (OT & NT) that the memorial Passover feast in particular was a "household" meal, although the inaugural Passover is quite often interpreted thus."
It seemed plain to me that the remembrance and celebration of the Passover commanded to the Israelites in Exodus 12 was celebrated by the entire household, (no work, no leaven) and that "all the congregation of Israel shall keep it," including the slaves within the household, provided they were circumcised.
I get that you cant really feed infants unleavened bread, but it seems obvious that children in the household avoided work and leaven regardless of their comprehension of the celebration.
Instructions for the inaugural Passover are found in Ex.12:1-13. It includes not only instructions on preparation of the lamb, but also putting blood on the doorposts, the manner of eating, the accoutrements of travel. The manner of eating and of dress, and the marking of the doorway were unique to this event, and not repeated in future memorials. The Feast of Unleavened Bread is outlined in vv14-20, and the terms of it are echoed several times in the Pentateuch; but significantly the memorial Passover terms are not repeated in the other texts, being confined to this chapter; explicit memorial terms are found in vv43-49.
Because the arguments are technical and linguistic, I will not here present reasons why the language of vv3-4 is subject to more than one interpretation--including an adult male focus. I will simply grant the opinion that they refer to a whole house and all members within it without distinction. I judge that the requirement for circumcision (see v48 and v44) was expected for participation even on this occasion, however it is not made explicit at first. But for simplicity's sake, this argument does not insist on practically any restriction on those who were encouraged to participate in the inaugural Passover.
From v21 we have Moses delivering the Lord's instructions to the people, and although v24 might seem to oblige blood on the doorway in all future memorials, the fact was the Passover was a centralized feast in the land removing the people from their dwellings for celebration. The wandering Israelites lived in tents and there is no indication they put blood on their tent-doorways. So, we understand that not every detail of the first Passover was enjoined on future celebration. It was a substantive memorial, but certain facts of the inaugural were not treated to a slavish repetition (much like Lord's Supper memorials do not require participants to recline on couches like Jesus' disciples).
v25 gives another indication that the Passover will be repeated year after year. v26 follows with the well-known interrogation, which does not ask "Why do WE do this?" but "Why do YOU do this?" It does not sound like the question of a participant, unless one is already predisposed to think there was a general (household) admission not qualified by any other legal indicators also found in the law. On the other hand, it is the natural question of an inquirer, an onlooker.
v28 tells of the Israelites' obedience, and vv29-39 of the events of the Exodus. vv40-51 are the conclusion to the chapter, the Passover, and the Exodus itself, and includes the last of the festal commentary. In fact it is the most important of that commentary, being introduced by this language: "This is the ordinance of the Passover:" Many people are restricted from the meal by category. One category is insisted on (even limited to). These final vv are not meant to be read abstracted from the rest of the ch, but whatever else they do they especially speak to the memorial feast as it is to be remembered in the Promised Land. To know this ordinance, you cannot go to later in Exodus, or Leviticus, or Deuteronomy where it is not repeated; you have to read it here.
One verse (28) testifies to the experience of the Passover. The rest of the reference to Passover is split between commentaries on the event itself and its memorial. Unleavened bread removal (and refraining) was not confined to one place in Israel, but was to be for every house or tent. But as for eating the lamb, after the inaugural event came the Exodus and the assembly at Sinai; and thereafter Levitical priests oversaw the killing of the sacrifice at the altar. In the land, whether it was at the Sanctuary (later Jerusalem) or back at home with those who stayed, only unleavened bread was made and eaten. In that sense, everyone who ate properly during that time while living in the land experienced some aspect of the feast; but not in its essential participation: the Passover lamb.
"No leaven" was a week's worth of (mild) discipline the whole time (14th through 21st days, v18). The command to refrain from work was not for all the days, but for the Sabbaths (1st day and 7th day) of the festal week. Only food preparation was permitted. The point relative to households is this: removal of all leaven impacted everyone within the bounds of the nation--even non-Israelites, which no one imagines were fully engaged in the feast. Likewise for Sabbath-resting (not limited to Israelite citizens). Noting this demand, therefore, does not establish any "inclusive" principle relative to the Passover portion of the feast.
"All the congregation of Israel." The "congregation" term needs to be contextualized
every time it is used. A cursory consultation of a concordance will demonstrate how flexible a term it is. There are times when it is a largely inclusive term referring to virtually every last Israelite. But other times, it refers to a representative body--either in formal representatives (ala governors), or those who gather in worship assembly, or another informal yet representative gathering of the people. In the context of Ex.12:47, given the assumed future context of settlement in the land and the centralized celebration of Passover, the best interpretation of "all the congregation of Israel" is that everyone who has come for the Passover (provided they are not disqualified) should intentionally be included. Those who have not come, presumably with an excuse or another good reason, cannot in the nature of the case participate. They do not get to sacrifice on their own, away from the lone Israelite altar (Dt.12:14).
Of course, there would be some who came for Passover, but were disqualified. Foreigners might come, but not participate. Israelites who were unclean could not participate, Lev.15:31, cf. Jn.18:28; Num.9:6; Lev.7:20-21. No unclean person in Israel was allowed to participate (outwardly) in the religious life of the people. Ceremonial cleanness was a barrier. Levites, priests, and most of all the high priest, were progressively more sanctified and ceremonially clean for the purpose of serving the people, doing on behalf of the many what they were never clean
enough to do. The Nazirite vow was an extraordinary opportunity for an ordinary Israelite
for a set period of time to live and labor in an elevated state of holiness, something like the lives of the priests. They were ceremonially cleansed and set apart for special religious service during the time of their vow.
So, not only the Passover, but all the feasts, and the altar, were only accessible (outwardly) by those who were clean. The religious life was extra demanding. The high priest was forbidden from making himself unclean by mourning for anyone dead in his own family, Lev.21:11. Why? Because it was more important that he remain clean for the sake of the people depending on him and the performance of his religious duties. Parents and leaders enforce the limitations of Sabbath-work and the availability of the kind of bread in the house for all its members. But the ceremonial Passover lamb was a sacrifice, the kind of religious duty that demanded willful and knowledgeable participation.
For the last word I'll include in this post, consider that eating the Passover lamb was not a
meal but a ceremony of eating. Some suppose the inaugural Passover was a subdued party, and everyone had their fill of the barbecue. They don't know how little meat is on an ordinary, wobbly lamb. Our typical Lord's Supper celebration is dismissed by some of the same folk, who think it should be more than a mouthful. But it too is a
ceremonial meal. OT or NT, these occasions are signs and seals. If we turn them into carnally filling/fattening events, we have less focus on the reality and the thing being signified. Both memorials, Passover and the Lord's Supper, are
token feasts. They point beyond themselves. The face-to-face supper with our Lord and all the saints in the new heavens and earth will be the reality, when we are
filled at last.
It is vital that our children understand this business before they make entrance on the symbolic table with its Sacrificial president Jesus at the head. It was vital that the OT Israelite children understood the business before they made entrance on their feasts and sacrificial altar pointing to the coming Christ.