Acts 16:7

Over against Mysia

(κατα την Μυσιαν). 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

(επειραζον εις την Βιθυνιαν πορευθηνα). Conative imperfect of πειραζω and ingressive aorist passive infinitive of πορευομα. 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 verses Acts 16:6; Acts 16:7. The grammar and the topography bring Paul right up to Bithynia (north of the old Galatia). It is verses Acts 16:6; Acts 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

(κα ουκ ειασεν αυτους το πνευμα Ιησου). The same Spirit who in verse Acts 16:6 had forbidden going into Asia now closed the door into Bithynia. This expression occurs nowhere else, but we have the spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9) and the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19). Ειασεν is first aorist active indicative of εαω, old verb to allow.