{Over against Mysia} (kata t(886e) 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 t(886e) Bithunian
poreuth(886e)ai). Conative imperfect of peiraz(935c) 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 verses  6,7 . The grammar and the topography bring
Paul right up to Bithynia (north of the old Galatia). It is
verses  6,7  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 I(8873)ou). The same Spirit
who in verse  6  had forbidden going into Asia now closed the
door into Bithynia. This expression occurs nowhere else, but we
have the spirit of Christ ( Ro 8:9 ) and the Spirit of Jesus
Christ ( Php 1:19 ). Eiasen is first aorist active indicative
of ea(935c), old verb to allow.