Over against Mysia (kata tēn Musian). This was an ill-defined region rather north and west of Phrygia. The Romans finally absorbed most of it in the Province of Asia.
They assayed to go into Bithynia (epeirazon eis tēn Bithunian poreuthēnai). Conative imperfect of peirazō and ingressive aorist passive infinitive of poreuomai. Now Bithynia is northeast of Mysia and north of Galatia (province). Clearly Luke means to say that Paul had, when hindered by the Holy Spirit from going west into Asia, gone north so as to come in front of Bithynia. This journey would take him directly through Phrygia and the North Galatian country (the real Gauls or Celts). This is, to my mind, the strongest argument for the North Galatian view in these Act 16:6, Act 16:7. The grammar and the topography bring Paul right up to Bithynia (north of the old Galatia). It is Act 16:6, Act 16:7 that make me pause before accepting the plausible arguments of Ramsay for the South Galatian theory. In itself the problem is nothing like so important or so determinative as he makes it. But shall we smash Luke’s grammar to pieces to bolster up a theory of criticism?
And the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not (kai ouk eiasen autous to pneuma Iēsou). The same Spirit who in Act 16:6had forbidden going into Asia now closed the door into Bithynia. This expression occurs nowhere else, but we have the spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9) and the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phi 1:19). Eiasen is first aorist active indicative of eaō, old verb to allow.