Preceding trends in Christology, anthropology, terminology and exegetical approach informed by the differing Christian cultures of Alexandria and Antioch demonstrate a marked influence on the commentaries on John of Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Their exposition and commentary of Jesus' words, "That they may be one," in John 17 primarily reflect an approach to the text that is focused on our union with God and secondarily on our union with one another. While Theodore and Cyril's approaches to the text are similar in many ways, they ultimately come to different conclusions regarding what it means to be one with the Father through the mediation of Christ about which Jesus speaks in John 17:21. Theodore of Mopsuestia interprets this union in terms of a conjunction, or connection between the human and divine in Christ and between human beings and the Father. Such a union is at heart relational, reflecting Antiochene two-subject Christology expressed in a single person, although the Greek word Theodore used was Prosōpon. Theodore's prosopic language grew out of the Antiochene engagement with and reaction to Arius and Apollinaris, and had at its heart a concern that the divinity be safeguarded from any contact with created nature which might in any way diminish divinity. Cyril of Alexandria understands the union with the Father to entail not just an association or relationship, but essentially a divinization of the human nature that "well-nigh" transforms it into another nature. He speaks of Christ in terms of a single subject as God and Man in the one Nature of God the Word. Such an understanding grew out of his own opposition to Arius, as well as his reaction against what he perceived to be an overemphasis by Antiochene interpreters on the distinction of the human and divine in Christ, to the detriment of the union between the two. At the heart of their exegesis and Christology are two different understandings of what it means to participate in the divine nature: an Alexandrian approach that is not reticent to call the redeemed "gods" versus an Antiochene aversion to very language of Theōsis.