G.W. North emphasizes the significance of the blood of the covenant in his sermon, noting the different perspectives of the Gospel writers on the cup and the blood. While Matthew and Mark focus on the shedding of blood for the remission of sins, Luke and Paul highlight the cup as the New Testament in Christ's blood, introducing the concept of communion. North points out that the use of 'the cup' signifies its special importance in the context of the Last Supper, contrasting it with the more general reference to bread. He underscores that Jesus' sacrifice extends beyond the immediate disciples to many others, reflecting the universal nature of salvation. The sermon invites listeners to appreciate the depth of communion and the covenant established through Christ's blood.

It is noticeable that although Matthew and Mark do not mention the Cup, both speak of the shed blood, while Luke and Paul both speak of the Cup and of the blood, but not of its shedding. However, there is that of which they speak with unanimity, namely all the writers draw our attention to the real content of the blood — the New Testament. This is obviously the most important point. Matthew and Mark use the word 'many' when speaking of the blood-shedding; the former alone adds that it was shed for the remission of sins. Luke is very pointed about it, moving from the wider sphere of 'many' to the more exclusive 'you', while Paul speaking directly to the Corinthian church uses no such term, but simply says, 'this cup is the New Testament in my blood, this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me'. The later apostle adds a further comment upon the rite with this illuminating question, 'the cup which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?' So we see that Paul, like Luke, does not mention the blood-shedding at all, neither does he talk about sin or persons, whether many or few. He does, however, emphasise the Lord Jesus and the cup and the New Testament and the blood, and by talking of communion introduces an entirely new dimension. Paul's double emphasis upon the cup, joined together with Luke's report of Jesus' actual words, draws attention to the fact that the cup is directly mentioned three times in all. Add to this the knowledge that both Matthew and Mark also refer to it in the context of the supper and a significant fact emerges, namely that in this context a comparatively unimportant item such as a cup suddenly becomes invested with a very special meaning — it is the cup. There is a noticeable change of language here. When speaking of the other element of communion, no article is used, 'He took bread'; but when speaking of blood, the definite article is used, 'the cup' or 'this cup'. This cup is the New Testament in His blood which was 'shed for many' — how many we are not told. When the Lord spoke the words He was telling those men that, important as they were to Him and the Church, His blood was not shed just for them, but for many more than they.