The passage
      v1-2. Luke carefully sets the scene. Jesus is corporate Israel undertaking a new Exodus (leaves the water, enters the desert, 40 days...). Will he fail the test as Israel did all those years before?
      v3. The devil addresses Jesus as "Son of God". This is a messianic title, although the devil fully understands Jesus' relationship with the Father. The "if" is not expressing doubt as to Jesus' messiahship, but is rather a goad for him to use his powers to establish the kingdom, rather than trusting God to supply the wherewithal for the kingdom's realization.
      v4. Israel doubted that God would supply food for the journey through the wilderness. Jesus has no such doubts.
      v5-8. In the second test, Satan offers Jesus an easy way to establish the kingdom - the power and glory of this age instead of humility, suffering and death. Satan is even willing to give up his authority over the inhabited world, but Jesus must acknowledge Satan's lordship and that would mean bondage. Jesus chooses to fight Satan and travel God's way to victory.
      v9-12. In the third test, Jesus is tempted to gain messianic recognition through the application of miraculous powers, rather than by the way of the cross. Israel once doubted God's gracious provision for their journey when they argued with Moses at Massa. Jesus does not make the same error. Jesus understands and accepts that the messiah will be saved through death, not from death.
      v13. "all this tempting", means "every kind of temptation." Temptations would continue, but on this occasion Jesus faced the full range of temptations.

The time of testing
      The people of Israel were tested in the wilderness and failed the test. Jesus the Messiah, representing the people of Israel, was similarly tested. In our place, Jesus faced the test in the wilderness, trusting in the Lord. To doubt and turn aside from the way charted by God was to die in the wilderness as Israel did long ago, but Jesus understood his mission and remained firm to the end.
      As Christianity in Western society is increasingly marginalized, we begin to fear our very survival. Will the people of God be able to realize the kingdom against the power of this secular age? How will we proceed to establish the kingdom against such odds?

      i] The people of Israel doubted and grumbled all the way from Egypt to the promised land. Although God had promised to provide for their journey, they doubted that food and water could be found in the desert. Jesus also faced this test. At the beginning of his ministry, his journey to Jerusalem, to glory, he too faced the same doubts. Will God provide as he said he would?
      Jesus has set us on a journey to glory - the way of the cross. His word shows the way, but can we rely on his support? That's the test. For example, Jesus asks us to communicate the gospel to this broken world. His word tells us that it is the "power of God unto salvation for all who believe." Why then do we employ selling techniques, psychological manipulation, group dynamics, to achieve results? Jesus will supply the wherewithal for the journey; to doubt the efficacy of his word brings disaster.

      ii] In the harsh loneliness of the desert the people of Israel looked for a more tangible, powerful force, to take them onward. A Golden Calf, the symbol of Egypt's might, seemed the perfect answer. Jesus could secure the kingdom with a similar submission to dark powers, even though they cringe in the sight of God.
      Institutional Christianity, fearing its very survival, has latched onto "relevance" as the means of security. The adoption of pop culture in worship services seems to build congregations and so secure viability. Of course, all at the expense of substance. True worship has nothing to do with structure, neither Mount Gerizim nor Jerusalem, but is of "spirit and truth." The glory of this age, this system of things, may seem to secure our survival, even give success, but it will inevitably result in our bondage to darkness.

      iii] If Moses could get the people of Israel to recognize his leadership then he could easily take them onward. The sign of water from the rock seemed to be the answer. Yet, in claiming glory to himself he lost everything. Jesus faced a similar test - produce a mighty sign to gain recognition.
      Large congregations, powerful charismatic ministries, hype and energy, "signs and wonders", are the surefire elements to gain recognition and succeed in the church-building game. We put the Lord to the test when we forget that he builds his church.

      This passage is also very useful for the purpose of testing methods of Biblical interpretation.
      Methods for the interpretation of scripture are many. In my own case, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God when rightly interpreted, and that God's Word to us is, in the final analysis, the message of the writer, ie. the writers' message is God's message (irrespective of the myriad human elements contained in the writer's words). I tend toward a conservative approach so I give weight to the historicity of the event, eg. that Jesus was actually temped. None-the-less, I happily play with redaction criticism, less so with source criticism, and happily welcome the return of interpreters to literary criticism, but worry about reader response approaches. The "whatever it means to you is true" approach is a bit of a worry.
      The story of the temptation of Jesus evidences an oral tradition in a homiletic form. It is a perfect three-point sermon, and was most likely preserved for us in this form. It also evidences a kingdom of God Biblical theology, a theology grounded in the Old Testament. The gospel writers have taken the oral tradition of the temptation and reworked it to their own ends; note the differences between Luke and Matthew.
      We could search for the original oral form, or search for the historical substance of the temptation, but in the end, the inspired Word for us is the message of the writer, namely, the three points of the sermon framed in the Biblical theology of the kingdom of God. It is hard to find a better passage for the purpose of testing different methods of Biblical interpretation.

v1
      plhrhV pneumatoV aJgiou "full of the Holy Spirit" - full of Holy Spirit. Often used by Luke in the sense of equipped to speak powerfully and truthfully for God, Acts, 6:5, 8; 7:55, 11:24.
      hgeto (ago) imperf. pas. "led" - led about. A divine passive. Note that Luke does not further the anomaly found in Matthew where Jesus is led out into the wilderness after having been with the Baptist in the wilderness.
      en tw/ pneumati "by the Spirit" - in the Spirit. en followed by the dative = "in", or possibly "by means of". It is sometimes equivalent to hupo followed by the accusative = "by", but not when following a possessive verb as here. Jesus is not under the Spirit's control, but is rather guided by the Spirit; he is walking in the Spirit.
      en th/ erhmw/ "in the desert" - // LXX Deut.8:2. Jesus is led about in (not "to") the wilderness by the Spirit as Israel was led about all those years before.

v2
      peirazomenoV (peirazw) pres. pass. part. "was tempted" - being tempted/tested. The present tense indicates that the testing is during the 40 days. As with Mark, the testing is during the 40 days as was Israel's testing during the 40 years.
      ouk efagen ouden "he ate nothing" - he didn't eat nothing. In this double negative, the first negates the clause and the second the object. Luke could have used words appropriate for fasting here, but has chosen not to. So, Jesus is not fasting? For Luke, Jesus comes eating and drinking.
      en taiV hJmeraiV ekeinaiV "during those days" - in those days. Luke uses this Old Testament phrase as a cue to the fulfilment of scripture, cf. Act.2:18. Yet, how does Jesus' not eating fulfill scripture? It is likely that the whole 40 days experience is what fulfills scripture, although God's gift of manna is an act of grace to a grumbling people who have little faith. They ate, Jesus did not.
      suntelesqeiswn (suntelew) pas. part. "at the end of [them]" - having been completed.
      epeinasen (peinaw) "he was hungry" - The temptation reaches a crescendo when Jesus is affected by hunger pains.

v3
      oJ diaboloV "the devil" - Equivalent to the Old Testament satan meaning "adversary", "slanderer". Matthew uses either "satan" or "the tempter."
      ei "if" - The sentence introduced by "if" is a present supposition which implies nothing as to the fulfilment or otherwise of the condition. The verb in the protasis, here the verb to be, is indicative. Of course, Satan knows full well that Jesus is the Son of God.
      uJioV tou qeou "Son of God" - Many commentators argue that Satan is using this title as a descriptive of Jesus' filial relationship with the Father, but the term is also used as a messianic title for the Israel of God. It is surely more appropriate for Satan to cast doubts upon God's willing provision for Jesus' journey as the new Israel, in much the same way as he tested the faith of Israel of old as they journeyed from Egypt to the promised land.
      artoV (oV) sing. "bread" - loaf. Turn this stone into a loaf of bread. The singular is more appropriate than Matthew's "loaves".

v4
      cf. Deut.8:36. For the messiah "there is no need to leave off attending to God to seek for oneself", Nolland. Israel's yearning for the bread of Egypt displayed their little faith, but the new Israel will not go the same way.

v5
      anagagwn (anagw) proV auton "led him up" - took him up, taken up. No mention of a mountain as in Matthew, just the going up. Also, note that Matthew has this as the last test.
      en stigmh cronou "in an instant" - in a moment of time. The phrase probably carries the idea of Jesus receiving an instantaneous vision supplied by Satan. Another indication of his power.
      thV oikoumenhV "of the world" - inhabited world, but certainly not just the Roman Empire.

v6
      thn exousian tauthn aJpasan "all their authority" - all this authority/power. Such power, in Satan's hand, is horrific. We have all witnessed it in war and famine.
      thn doxan autwn "their ....... splendor" - the glory of them. The "their" does not have a natural antecedent here, but of course refers to "the kingdoms of the world", v5.
      oJti emoi paradedotai "for it has been given to me" - because it has been given to me. What has been given to Satan: the inhabited world, the power and/or the glory of the inhabited world, or all three? Probably both power and the glory, but possibly just the glory (is it all just mirrors with Satan?). In any case, Satan has been given "it" and has the right to give "it" to whomsoever he wills. The kingdom is easily established through an application of the power and glory of this age, and so Jesus is tempted to take the easy path of compromise. Mind you, Satan may be lying!!!!!

v7
      ean "if" - Another conditional sentence, a future supposition: ean with the subjunctive in the protasis and a future indicative in the apadosis. If you do this, these consequences will result.

v8
      proskunhseiV (proskunew) "worship" - you shall worship. Deut.6:13.

v9
      hgagen (agw) "led" - brought.
      to pterugion (ov) "the highest point" - a little wing. A high part of the temple jutting out from the wall.
      enteuqen adv. "from here" - From where they were standing and therefore not at Satan's feet. Satan and the Father are the onlookers. The test seems designed to force a divine response for the protection of the messiah and thus, the inauguration of the kingdom outside the divine plan to establish the kingdom through the suffering of the cross.

v11
      kai oJti - and that. Serves to identify that verses 11 and 12 of Psalm 90 are being quoted separately to support the case that God protects a godly person. Yet, Jesus knows that the messiah is to be saved through death, not from death.

v12
      eipen (eipon, legw) "it says" - say. An interesting use, given that "it is written" is the usual form of words for a quote.
      ekpeiraseiV (ekpeirazw) fut. "to the test" - to test, to try, to put to the test: "to try to learn the nature or character of someone or something by submitting such to thorough and extensive testing"*. Test God, his capacity/power to act or his willingness to act, Deut.6:16? The people of Israel put God to the test at Massah when they doubted his provision for them, they doubted that he would keep his promise to them, Ex.17:3. Note that the sense is different to the "test" Satan applies to Jesus where he seeks to catch Jesus out, trip him up, tempt him.