Guys, in honesty I have to break the ice. I don't agree with Yada's interpretation of Galatians, well at least not yet. At first I was buying what he said but as I really thought about it I realised I didn't agree with him but agreed with Paul. For example I'm perfectly happy with Paul using Sarah and Hagar to define the difference trusting in Yahweh to fulfil His covenant and trying to fulfil the promise in one's own strength. I believe Paul is right when he says "For in Messiah Yahshua neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any strength, but belief working through love," because if physical circumcision is a prerequisite for salvation then it surely means we have to keep the remainder of the Torah as well. Why do one and not the other? Why elevate the covenant with Abraham above the covenant with Moses, why elevate circumcision over the 10 Commandments, why elevate circumcision over having to keep the literal laws of the Torah? Scripture has clearly defined there's more than one covenant, though all covenants are tied up in Yahshua (Isaiah 42:6-7), Yahweh's Covenant personified. He is the One way to Yahweh, if we somehow think our flesh and blood seals the deal, i.e. our foreskins removed, then we bring His work to naught. We cannot buy our way in, it is like slavery where one works really hard for little or no reward, i.e. Paul's reference to Hagar. A person trying heed the literal laws of the Torah might benefit from being productive, being healthy, having a legal system that works, BUT if his heart's not circumcised it is all meaningless. It would be as if one was a slave, working hard for no real reward. All his trips to the temple would've been pointless, even being circumcised would've been pointless. I'm perfectly happy with Paul comparing the Torah to Hagar, the slave woman, and to be satisfied with Paul one needs to under the context he's using. Children of the slave woman are unbelievers, those who reject Yahshua, whether a Pharisee or an Atheist. They will be judged by the Torah and found wanting, it will be harsh towards them in judgement.
Yada also takes Paul's Galatians 3:21 apart, but I believe Yada took Paul out of context. Paul was saying that for us trying to keep the literal laws as a means to earn salvation renders the Torah without life because the task is impossible in our own strength. The Torah does however produce life if we understand that we cannot earn our way into heaven but have to trust Yahshua. The Torah is meaningless and dead without Yahshua, but with Yahshua it becomes full of promise and full of life.
Also, Yada tries to justify physical circumcision by using Ezekiel 44:9 "Thus said the Master Yahweh, "No son of a foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, comes into My set-apart place, even any son of a foreigner who is among the children of Yisra’ĕl."" But in context, or the way I see it, this is talking about the physical Millennial Temple, and obviously for a person to enter the temple they would need to be -and I hate to use the word- ceremonially clean. But this time round God also wants people to enter the Temple with circumcised hearts, because He was accusing the Jews of not taking His laws seriously before, their hearts weren't in it the first few times round. The passage of Ezekiel is obviously deeply metaphorical as well. Note: I'm not really sure who exactly and where in Jewish history the passage of Ezekiel 44:5-8 is referring to, maybe perhaps it's also talking about the Antichrist who will take charge of the temple during the Tribulation, thereby desecrating it, but I'm not sure.
If you would like to be circumcised as a demonstration of your trust and reliance in Yahshua then by all means get circumcised, but remember this: you received His Spirit (the seal of your redemption) before your circumcision! If you believe you're saved because of physical circumcision then you got to ask yourself: what about all this time from my departure away from Christianity up until now, was I not saved even though I've been using the Names all this time? And this is the point of Galatians, it talks about the initial stage of being born from above, do we receive the Spirit by doing works in our own strength or do we receive the Spirit by believing what we heard. It sounds to me as if the Galatians were worried that they weren't really saved because of not being circumcised, they had become confused, because someone started saying to them they had to be circumcised in the flesh to be saved. But Paul came to say to them that they were already saved through trust and reliance in the finished work of Messiah, therefore they didn't have to worry about trying to earn salvation through their flesh and blood. Paul never encouraged people to turn their eyes away from Torah, that's an errant assumption by the church, Paul was instead teaching the deeper things of the Torah.
If it wasn't finished then we wouldn't have the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
I wasn't planning on writing so soon, I had originally intended to wait until after Yada posted his 200 odd page chapter to make my opinions known. I was even planning on just keeping my mouth shut but in the end I thought I owe it to you all to know my thoughts on the matter.
I hope I haven't spoiled the party.
But please note: I'm still very much open and willing to change my mind if the evidence proves convincing.