I don't use the Graphical Query capability in the LDLS often. But I was looking at 1Ti 3.7 tonight. The last part of the verse goes like this:

ἵνα μὴ εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν ἐμπέσῃ καὶ παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου.

The English (from the ESV) is “... so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.” Now, my question in looking at this has to do with the the second half. Is παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου epexegetical? That is, does “into a snare of the devil” explain the disgrace being fallen into, or are these two seperate things? Or something else altogether? As the ESV repeats “into”, it's a safe bet that they see these as two seperate things. But I want to understand it, not just take someone else's word for it. 

I thought it might be enlightening to search for patterns based on morphology instead of patterns based on words. So I whipped out my Grapical Query Editor in the LDLS and pointed and clicked my way to:

A preposition, followed by a noun in the accusative case, followed by a verb in the subjunctive mood, followed by a conjunction, followed by a noun in the accusative case — the whole thing occurring, in that order, in the space of nine words or less.

I didn't find much. So I went back to the drawing board:

Here I used the super-groovy agreement operator to specify that I wanted my nouns to agree in case and number. I also got rid of the preposition part and changed the conjunction reference to an explicit καὶ. I ran the search again, and still didn't find much. What I did find wasn't applicable as there were articles and such before the second noun. I could've tweaked it further to account for that, but I was returning under 10 hits and none of them were helping me; tweaking wouldn't accomplish anything. Blast. So I don't have any more results to evaluate. Widening the field didn't help either.

Thankfully, I still have commentaries to look at. Knight (NIGTC on Pastorals) mentions:

The first aspect of this concern is that he will fall into “reproach” (ὀνειδισμός). From whom will the reproach come? That is to say, is ὀνειδισμός qualified by the genitive τοῦ διαβόλου or is it used absolutely? For the former, it is argued that the preposition εἰς is not repeated before παγίδα. For the latter, it is argued that the reproach follows from the potential bishop not having a good testimony from those outside and so is not restricted exclusively to the διάβολος. That consideration is more in line with the context. (Knight, 165)

Compare that to Ellicott, writing in the 1860's:

... the absence of the article before παγίδα being perhaps due to the preposition; comp. Winer, Gr. 19.2, p. 114. The exact connexion is somewhat doubtful, as the gen. may depend (a) on both, or (b) only on the last of the two substantives. The omission of the prep. before παγίδα (De W.) is an argument in favour of (a); the isolated position however of ὀνειδισμός and the connexion of thought in ch. 5.14, 15, seem to preponderate in favour of (b), ὀνειδισμός being thus absolute, and referring to 'the reproachful comments and judgment,' whether of those without (Chrys.) or within the Church. ... The expression παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου ('snare laid by the devil;' apparently gen. originis, contrast ver. 6), occurs again in 2Ti 2.26; so similarly in 1Ti 6.9. It is here added to ὀνειδισμός, not epexegetically ... but rather as marking the temptations that will be sure to follow the loss of character; 'quid spei restat ubi nullus est peccandi pudor?' Calv. (Ellicott, 45).

If I knew half of what either of these two dudes have (had) forgotten, I'd be in incredible shape. However ... I do feel kind of good that it seems I actually asked the right question. That's a step up for me.

Conclusion: not epexegetical. Further question, though — does the “fronting” (hope I'm using that term correctly) of εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν before the verb have anything to do with the conclusion? In other words, could the position of these words before the verb provide any indication that the “trap of the devil” is not the same thing as the “disgrace”, but that it is (if I've understood all of this correctly) subsequent to the disgrace?