Can a divorce uttered later in speech precede a divorce uttered earlier in speech?

Primary text

The divorce takes place sequentially as arranged in the utterance, even if the wording suggests a temporal sequence contrary to the actual order. This is supported by analogy to other correct speech structures where what is mentioned later in phrasing precedes what is mentioned earlier, such as saying, 'Zaid came after Amr,' or 'Give Zaid after Amr.' The ruling is that the later stated divorce does not necessarily follow the earlier one in time, as the utterance itself functions as establishing the order of occurrence, and it does not constitute a divorce in a past time, but rather an enactment ordered sequentially.