In your question you state:

God clearly meant that foreigners were to be circumcised also...

This is a misinterpretation of the inclusion of foreign-born slaves in the commandment that Abraham's slaves were to be circumcised. There is no exegetical reason to take that commandment as anything but literal. Abraham's males slaves (and the slaves of anyone claiming to be part of this covenant) were to be circumcised.

Later we read in Exodus that a foreigner who wished to partake of the Passover feast was also to be circumcised before being allowed to participate. There is nothing in that passage, or in any related passage, requiring a non-literal interpretation, or extending it beyond the simple requirement that only circumcised people eat of the feast.

The chief flaw in the OP, as posed, is the assumption that Christians of modern times are subject to these commandments. This represents a misunderstanding of the role of covenants in God's revelation. The commandments within a covenant apply only to those who are part to that covenant. The Mosaic covenant was given to the nation of Israel and to nobody else; its commandments apply only to those who are in that nation. The Abrahamic covenant applies only to Abraham and his house.

Acts 15 makes this abundantly clear, well before Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians. The apostles and elders do not argue that the Judaizing teachers were restoring a burden to the Gentiles that had previously been taken away, but instead state that the Judaizing teachers were imposing a burden that previously did not exist and for which there was no divine authority.

Paul, in a like manner, did not take away circumcision. He emphasized that for those who were not Israelites or Abrahamites, the commandments within the Law of Moses simply did not apply.

In your question you state:

God clearly meant that foreigners were to be circumcised also...

This is a misinterpretation of the inclusion of foreign-born slaves in the commandment that Abraham's slaves were to be circumcised. There is no exegetical reason to take that commandment as anything but literal. Abraham's males slaves (and the slaves of anyone claiming to be part of this covenant) were to be circumcised.

Later we read in Exodus that a foreigner who wished to partake of the Passover feast was also to be circumcised before being allowed to participate. There is nothing in that passage, or in any related passage, requiring a non-literal interpretation, or extending it beyond the simple requirement that only circumcised people eat of the feast.

The chief flaw in the OP, as posed, is the assumption that Christians of modern times are subject to these commandments. This represents a misunderstanding of the role of covenants in God's revelation. The commandments within a covenant apply only to those who are party to that covenant. The Mosaic covenant was given to the nation of Israel and to nobody else; its commandments apply only to those who are in that nation. The Abrahamic covenant applies only to Abraham and his house.

Acts 15 makes this abundantly clear, well before Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians. The apostles and elders do not argue that the Judaizing teachers were restoring a burden to the Gentiles that had previously been taken away, but instead state that the Judaizing teachers were imposing a burden that previously did not exist and for which there was no divine authority.

Paul, in a like manner, did not take away circumcision. He emphasized that for those who were not Israelites or Abrahamites, the commandments within the Law of Moses simply did not apply.