Is there a problem with the chronological order that John indicates for the events in chapters 5, 6, and 7?

Here I continue to argue that there is not. Critical scholars have created "problems" where no problem really exists. I discuss several more extremely weak arguments that chapters 5 and 6 are out of order, despite their explicit temporal indicator "after these things," and that there are explanatory benefits to swapping them. I continue to use Gary M. Burge as my foil, from his book _Interpreting the Gospel of John_. I also show that two of Burge's complaints about the placement of John 5 are in tension with one another: If one of them is a problem and is solved by the move he suggests, the other must not be a problem.

Thumbnail by Foto: Jonn Leffmann, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=122817403