Redeemer of the Redeemer?

I recently took notice again of a footnote on Luke 2:22 from the NAB-RE:

They took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord: as the firstborn son (Lk 2:7) Jesus was consecrated to the Lord as the law required (Ex 13:2, 12), but there was no requirement that this be done at the temple. The concept of a presentation at the temple is probably derived from 1 Sm 1:24–28, where Hannah offers the child Samuel for sanctuary services. The law further stipulated (Nm 3:47–48) that the firstborn son should be redeemed by the parents through their payment of five shekels to a member of a priestly family. About this legal requirement Luke is silent.

I particularly took notice of the final two sentences that seemed strange to me.

The ritual of redeeming a firstborn son as mentioned in Numbers 3:47-48 is called Pidyon Haben. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, the Pidyon Haben replaced the requirement of the consecration of the firstborn son to the Lord if both parents were non-Levites. If either parent was of the tribe of Levi, the son could not be redeemed.

So, I came to basically three possible scenarios. All three of which I think are possible, but I think the first is most probable:

• Joe did not redeem Jesus because Mary was of the tribe of Levi, and therefore Jesus could not be redeemed. 
• I spoke of Mary being of the tribe of Levi in One Mother, Two Roots.
• Joe did not redeem Jesus because he realized the significance of Jesus' mission of being the sacrificial Lamb of God and High Priest (Hebrews 9:11-14).
• This position allows for the possibility that Mary was not of the tribe of Levi, but it does not require it.
• Joe did redeem Jesus by paying the five shekels and Luke just made no mention of it. 
• I think that this is the least probable scenario, 
• but if this is in fact the case, we could rightly call Joe "The Redeemer of the Redeemer".