Luke 4:3

And the devil said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, command this stone that it become bread.

One may only marvel at the type of thinking (!) which sees the word "stone" here as in any way contradictory of "stones" as recorded by Matthew, both words meaning exactly the same thing. The writer once asked a freight yard attendant what was in a certain car, and he replied, "It was 57,000 pounds of stone!" It was, in fact, crushed granite, probably several million "stones"! Thus there is no need to "harmonize" the accounts; but, as Boles noted:

Some explain this as though the devil had first commanded "these stones" to be made into bread, and later commanded only one particular stone to be made into bread, and that Matthew recorded one of these statements of the devil, and Luke the other made a little later.[6]

Boles' explanation is, of course, absolutely valid, if one insists on seeing differences in what Matthew and Luke recorded. Such variations are positive, infallible proof that the Gospels are independent records; and, if they did not appear, the same critics who profess such dismay at the "variations" would make their absence the grounds of denying the independence of the sacred records.

If thou art the Son of God ... This could be taken as an effort on the part of Satan to create a doubt in Jesus' mind; but Boles is more likely correct in the view that "IF seems to have the force of SINCE, which would express no doubt."[7] If this is allowed as correct, then Satan already knew that Jesus was the Messiah, admitting it in this suggestion. It does not appear, however, that Satan at this point actually recognized Jesus as "God come in the flesh," a recognition that was to come later. If Satan had known at the time, it seems unlikely he would have tried to accomplish Jesus' murder through the citizens of Nazareth (Luke 4:29).

Command this stone that it become bread ... The temptation here was that of suggesting that Jesus should use his own miraculous power to meet his daily needs. Both Satan and Jesus knew that the Lord had ample power to do this; but, if Jesus had done it, it would have indicated a failure to rely on the Father. It would have been taking things into his own hands. Here appears one of the most enticing aspects of temptation. The need which the situation required to be met was genuine, legitimate, and altogether honorable; but Christ did not fall into the error of meeting legitimate need by illegal and forbidden means. If Christ had met his own physical need by such a miracle as Satan suggested, it would have given Christ an unfair advantage not enjoyed by all other mortals, thus compromising the intent and purpose of the incarnation itself. Furthermore it would have pointed away from Jesus' purpose of saving men from their sins, and toward the alleviation of their earthly and physical needs. As Ash said, "Jesus did not come to supply bread for humanity but to answer their deeper needs."[8]

[6] H. Leo Boles, A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1972), p. 91.

[7] Ibid., p. 92.

[8] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), p. 81.