In den meisten Religionen ist das Beten einer der wichtigsten Mittel, mit dem man die Gottheit erreichen kann. Wichtig ist es auch zu sehen, welche Rolle das Beten bei der griechischen Philosophie und bei dem Frühchristentum gespielt hat. Insbesondere wird das Gebetsverständnis vom Mittelplatoniker Maximos von Tyrios und vom Stoiker Seneca untersucht. Im Frühchristentum wird die Schrift des Origenes über das Gebet unter die Lupe genommen, um zu zeigen, wie sich Origenes mit der griechischen Philosophie auseinandersetzte und eine christliche Antwort darauf vorbereitete, ob das Beten überhaupt im religiösen Leben notwendig ist. Maximos von Tyrios schreibt in seiner Schrift dialexeij die Bedeutung des Betens in seiner Umwelt. Er behauptet, es sei sinnlos zu beten, weil man mit dem Beten nichts erreichen könne. Die ähnliche Behauptung stellt der Stoiker Seneca auch auf, dass man nicht zu beten braucht, weil man die Tugend selbst erlangen könne und als Mensch dem Fatum gehorchen müsse. Die beiden Philosophen können aber keinen menschlichen freien Willen in ihren Systemen gewähren. Genau an diesem Punkt bietet Origenes mit seiner christlichen Antwort die Lösung an, dass Gott den menschlichen freien Willen gewährt. So korrigiert Origenes die falsche Meinungen über das Gebet, dass man nicht zu beten braucht. Gottes Vorsehung bleibt aber auch erhalten, wenn Menschen nach ihrem eigenen Willen beten, wenn sie schwach sind. Das ist der Grund, warum man zu Gott beten muss. Nach Origenes ist das Beten nicht unsere Leistung, sondern der Geschenk Gottes, weil unser Heiland Christus uns beim Beten hilft.

The purpose of this thesis is focussed on the explanation of the meaning of Origen’s prayer theology, the valuation of his contributions, and the comparision with Jesus’s understanding of the prayer. Opponents against the prayer argued that there is no need to pray, because God knows what the human wants and needs. In addition, God loved the creation and led them to salvation without prayer. Not only the divine will and providence can not be changed by the human prayer, but also human free will is opposed to God’s providence. In relation to that arguments Origen asserted that human prayer means that God’s providence and human free will work together. The human is cooperating with God through the prayer as an expression of man’s free will. According to Origen, “euché” has two meanings, namely “vow” and “petition”, but “proseuché” “petition or ask”. However, in the Gospels, Jesus say “proseuché” for the “petition”. Therefore, Origen see, that the criticism raised by opponents are easily refutable, if we understand “euché” to mean “vow”. And in relation of the personal egoism or self-centeredness in the korean church the meaning of “vows” ist more necessary and demanded than the of “petition or ask”. And everywhere in our society there is people, who are still facing problems, as well as food, clothing, and the right to live dignified, and violations of human rights and being happy. if the social, economic, and political conditions are in a relatively relaxed situation, petition praying is more suitable than “vow praying”. Thus, Jesus asked to pray his disciples and people gathered around him in the meaning of “petition”, because they were living in that socio-economic and political isolation and discrimination. Anyway, Origen’s rediscovery of the meaning of “euch” as vow would have been the best counter-weapon against his opponents. In that sense, it is suitable of us to vow in a relatively relaxed situation, but in a desperate situation, to ask or petition.

The well-known ecological theologian H. Paul Santmire points out that divine caring for nature we can see in early christian Fathers such as Irenaeus is totally missing in Origen’s anthropocentric view of nature. Origen, according to Santmire, shaped the biblical belief in the resurrection of the body to fit into the hierarchical, spiritualizing conceptuality. Then the material world will presumably fall back into nothingness, from whence it came, at the very end. Santmire concludes that the otherworldly view of salvation and the radical depreciation of the world of nature started from Origen, and this is due to the Platonic and Stoic influence upon him. Origen indeed employed Platonic and Stoic languages and speculations on human being and the created world. However, the fundamental sources and inspirations came from the scriptures and the tradition of the church. Origen, like other early christian Fathers, expressed the unity of creation by describing the functioning of different parts of creation as though they were limbs of a single body. It is difficult to pin Origen down to a specific statement that there will be restoration of the non-rational elements of the universe. He writes that if the heavens are to be changed like a vestment, then they are not to be destroyed, and if the fashion of the world passes away, it is by no means an annihilation or destruction of their material substance, but a kind of change of quality and transformation of appearance. It is primarily of physical human bodies that he is writing, but it is hard to exclude other material bodies from his meaning. Origen’s conception of ‘apokatastasis’, that is, the ‘restoration of all things’ could refer not only to humans but also to their physical environment, a restoration of Paradise. During the series of restorations through which more and more rational beings will have returned to God, successive restorations also of the physical universe will be necessary. When all have returned, at the point when God is all in all, the whole creation will also have returned to a permanent state of aethereal purity. Origen never shut his eyes to the beauty of the world created by God. We should now reevaluate Origen’s view of nature and change the negative thought on him.