Louw and Nida offer this for DEI:
71:21 to be something which should be done as the result of compulsion,
whether internal (as a matter of duty) or external ( law, custom, and
circumstances) -- 'should, ought, to have to do' . . . .
71:34 to be that which must necessarily take place, often with the
implication of inevitability -- 'to be necessary, must' . . . "the
dynamic duo" later say that for this to imply that it means it's a part
"the plan and purpose of God" . . . "could only be derived from broader
theological implications and not from the meaning of dei itself.
Rienecker offers this: "The word speaks of logical necessity [logical is
key] according to the binding needs of the circumstances (s.TDNT; AS).
Plutarch used the word to described the character of one who teaches
children (Moralia, The Education of Children,7)." p. 622.
Contextually?
Clearly the both clauses are explanations and expansions of Paul's first
phrase "EI TIS EPISKOPHS OREGETAI . . .DEI . . .DEI . . . " the first
DEI is "logically necessary" HINA MH TOPHOTHEIS EIS KRIMA EMPESH TOU
DIABOLOU. The second is also "logically necessary" HINA MH EIS
ONEIDISMON EMPESH KAI PAGIDA TOU DIABOLOU.
To which items listed does the 'dei" apply... They must all apply, not
for a "checklist" to make sure who will be the EPISKOPOS...but so that
the "result clauses" will not result.
I would ask any one how could they not all apply? the decision to omit
one over another...that is a personal, theological and biased rendering.
I could be wrong...not being a greek scholar.
Ronald Wong
O'Brien, FL