Luke 2:33

Joseph. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 146) the reading “father.” This reading does not necessarily imply a denial of the virgin birth, which fact Luke has stated clearly and unequivocally (Luke 1:26-35; cf. Matt. 1:18-25). In this instance, Luke would be thinking of Joseph in the legal and popular sense, but certainly not in the literal, physical sense (see on Matt. 1:21, 24). As the husband of Mary, Joseph became, in a certain real sense, the father of Jesus the moment Jesus was born. Thenceforth, or at least from the time of the Temple enrollment, in the customary language of the day, Joseph was looked upon as such (see Luke 3:23; 4:22; John 6:42). The first of Joseph’s duties in his role as legal father of Jesus was naming the child (see Matt. 1:21). Later, by divine direction, Joseph acted in that role (see Matt. 2:13, 19-22). That it is by no means inappropriate to speak of Joseph as the father of Jesus in this sense is evident from the fact that Mary herself uses this term (Luke 2:48). Also in v. 27, Luke includes Joseph as one of the “parents” of Jesus, certainly not in a literal sense, yet in an entirely appropriate, popular sense (see DA 82).

Marvelled. Not in the sense of surprise, for the angel had already appeared both to Joseph (Matt. 1:20) and to Mary (Luke 1:26, 27) with a similar message. Furthermore Elisabeth had addressed Mary with words obviously inspired (vs. 41-45). Also, Joseph and Mary had heard the account of the shepherds (ch. 2:20). Their wonder grew with each successive evidence of the Messiahship of the child Jesus, as Inspiration made ever clearer the task appointed Him by His Father in heaven. Perhaps, also, they were surprised that a stranger should recognize the great secret.