text: Hobson says:  "But Jesus and Paul (and Shammai) would have shared the rabbinic understanding that divorce is regrettable but permissible when the vow of fidelity, provision, or love has been broken and there is no repentance. This would include abuse and abandonment."
  
  Jesus addressed this.  As I told you, Jesus did not say that divorce is permissible when love departs, or when the husband becomes a drag on the family's treasure rather than the provider (as when the "old man" becomes terribly sick); or when "love has been broken."  These things are not adultery, and Jesus, knowing this, still limited the grounds for divorce to adultery.  Hobson doesn't explain this away.  Can you?