You know what they say: revenge is a dish best served cold. And never is that truer than in 2 Samuel. Joab and Absalom both wait to carry out their acts of blood vengeance, and (initially, at least) it ends up working out pretty well for them (although David does curse Joab and his house for killing Abner.) But when it comes to revenge, bad feelings will fester, and folks like Absalom, who has trouble forgiving his dad's inaction, will rebel. So while it may be a dish best served cold, it's really a dish that probably shouldn't be served at all.
Questions About Revenge
Is revenge ever justified?
Would Absalom's vengeance against Amnon have worked out for Absalom if he hadn't rebelled later? Or was the rebellion somehow provoked by David's inaction regarding Amnon's crime, in the first place?
Are Joab's vengeful actions comprehensible? Do they contradict the fact that he also helps Absalom and David reconcile the first time?
Was it wrong for David to replace Joab as the head of his army with Amasa—Absalom's former commander?