Pontius Pilate, New Testament

One must wonder how Pontius Pilate, Rome's local representative charged with ruling Judea during the 1st century AD, saw his job. Did he rise every morning happy to be the most powerful single individual in the area, or was he instead concerned with whatever surprising things might arise from ruling this little remnant of Israel? Was it only important that Rome's investment in occupation paid off  every year, or were other considerations also given weight? And was Pilate's position seen as a stepping stone in the Roman Empire, or a backwater, given little attention by those at the top of the Roman power structure?
It's hard to answer these questions with real authority, but it seems reasonable that even occupying powers favor stability among their subjects, and therefore would have known something about the line between mere exploitation and revolution-producing rebellion.  And the Romans were not new to empire building and maintenance.
In Judea, the matter of religion would be a major factor in deciding just how much occupation would be too much. The matter of Jesus would, to Pilate, have been just one more problem arising from the worship of the Jewish god. It's easy to see his reluctance to make new enemies by using violence against  a new class of victims. On the other hand, it must have become clear as Pilate all but begged the Passover mob for moderation, that the Jewish leaders had somehow convinced their followers that Jesus would have to die.
It wasn't that Pilate wasn't capable of violence, or even reluctant about it. But somewhere in his mind was the thought that one will more likely inflame by acting than by letting things pass with little or no public censure. He had also met and spoke with Jesus, and might have been impressed that this man, despite his tiny following and apparent nonviolent nature was no ordinary person.
But mob rule, though we hate the concept, was more likely to be the determining factor, even in the Roman Empire. Pilate did what he could to avoid responsibility for crucifying this man about whom he probably knew little. But in the end, he folded, choosing to tie himself  more closely to local  pharisees hoping to avoid revolt. Doubtless the crucifixion of Jesus went onto some kind of administrative report duly sent on to Rome, where it was probably marked "case closed" and forgotten.    

Nathan, Joab, Old Testament

We are all familiar with the vision of a person with two tiny visions of him/herself, one perched on each shoulder. One sports wings, while the other has horns and a forked tale. The person in the middle must choose between opposing advice whispered into each ear by this pair.
The life of David seems to be one in which the need to decide is plainly a struggle. On one hand is the advice of Nathan, a prophet given the task of helping David makes wise choices. But his is not the only voice in David's ear. Joab, the captain of the host, doesn't make suggestions himself, but stands ready to carry out the King's orders - no matter what they are or who they might hurt. Having a man like Joab on hand to do the "dirty" work represents a great temptation for David.
On a day when he would have been better off leading his army in battle, David was struck by the sight of Bathsheba bathing on her rooftop. He didn't lack feminine company, but David nevertheless pulled a few strings, paving the way to a sexual affair and an unplanned pregnancy. But there was a problem. Bathsheba was already married to Uriah the Hittite, probably a mid-level mercenary earning a dangerous living in King David's service
When David's attempt to cover his own sin failed, he turned to Joab for a favor. Uriah was simply to be left unprotected on the battlefield in order to become the victim of the opposing Amorites. The plan is a success, with David playing the role of mourning the loss of Uriah. The widow Bathsheba soon becomes David's wife, and no one, to David, is the wiser save Joab, Bathsheba and himself.
But there is no keeping secrets from God. Nathan soon tells David the story of a man who loses his little lamb to a man who takes it simply because he can. This angers David, and he begins to plan heavy punishment for the thief, when Nathan reveals the truth with just four words: "Thou art the man."
This represents a kind of turning point for David. To his credit, he doesn't deny the truth or try to pass the blame to someone else. His punishment is kept internal. He remains king and keeps Bathsheba, who later gives birth to Solomon. His reign, though, is not what it might have been because of God's promise that the remainder of his days would not bring peace, even within his own family. Though his words of sorrow are recorded in many of the Psalms, it is not enough to earn him the divine task of finally replacing the Tabernacle with a temple as a permanent home for the Ark of the Covenant. The job instead falls to Solomon.         

Captain Moroni, The Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon contains records of two important individuals with the same name - Moroni. This entry is concerned with the first of the two, commonly referred to, though not in the scripture itself, as Captain Moroni.
As a young man, Moroni is appointed leader of the Nephite armies. Mormon, the book's chief narrator, takes pains to portray Moroni as a man with no love for war, and as a person committed to high Christian standards. Even so, he sees his task as unavoidable - saving the Nephites from obliteration by war.
I believe Moroni had a non-military life before his country called on him. His people are outnumbered, and so he must look to gain advantage through both a technical edge, better use of tactics and superior intelligence. He is not shy about inspiring his troops by reminding them of their greater cause (preserving themselves and their families). When making plans with subordinate Nephite officers, there is no shouting, derision or humiliation. He simply depends on them to make good decisions.   
He is surprisingly generous to defeated soldiers from the other side whose lives are in his hands. More than once, he offers them the chance to return to their homes in peace, on one condition - that they take an oath never to take up arms again against his people. Such an offer today would be almost unthinkable, especially if made in the midst of a long and bloody conflict still far from any final resolution.
Mormon includes one chapter which reveals Moroni as imperfect. A lack of supplies and reinforcements frustrates Moroni at one point, and he writes a letter to the leaders of the Nephite government. Unaware of conditions which have caused the shortages, his words to the government are angry and include a threat to bring an army to forcibly remove them from power. Fortunately, Moroni soon learns the cause (domestic rebellion) of the problem, his threat is forgotten, the rebellion is suppressed and the Nephite army is restored to its full strength.
Not long after, the war is finally concluded, and Moroni finally has the chance to return to his own home in peace. Unfortunately, his retirement is cut short by a premature death, with the cause unexplained in the scriptures. We can safely guess that his funeral was a very large event.     

Zacharias, New Testament

Although we know quite a bit about the history of the Jews between the periods of the Old and New testaments, the scriptural record leaves a gap of about three hundred years. That's a long time to go without prophetic direction. If God revealed things to men during this period, it was in private, at least in the Eastern Hemisphere.
It is out of this period that Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, comes. His own life was winding down, unworthy of any special mention as Judea limped along, a captive state in a poor corner of the Roman Empire. He had no children. At this point he deserved credit only for having remained faithful despite a dearth of direct evidence that would have enhanced faith.
Then came the day Zacharias was to enter the temple to attend to his priestly responsibility, perhaps for the only time in his life. While there, he was visited by an angel, the first overt act by God in this new dispensation. Not only would Zacharias become a father, but his son (to be named John) would have a prominent role in clearing the way for an entirely new (to most) way of thinking about - nearly everything.
All this took Zacharias by surprise. His only response was to question how it (a son born to aging parents) could happen. Sure, this was a weak response for someone whose whole life was supposed to be based on matters of the Spirit, but could any of us have done much better? Zacharias was punished for doubting by losing the power of speech until the promised son was born. He needed no more convincing, though it must have puzzled him trying to grasp it all.
We know the main points of John's message, and that he was an influential contemporary of Jesus. The record shows him as especially fearless in condemning the failure of the religious institutions of his day. There is evidence that Zacharias did not live long into John's life, but it's still worth considering whether some part of the son's fiery message might have come originally from his own low key father.    

Jeremiah, Old Testament

By the time Jeremiah's mission begins, the House of Israel was considerably diminished. The Northern Kingdom of Israel had been taken captive by the Assyrians. A long string of prophets had warned of upcoming disaster if Judah did not repent and return to following the Law of Moses. Their pleas had largely been ignored.
Jeremiah's message differed in one important respect from preceding prophets. The day of repenting had passed, and hard conditions lay ahead, with all recourse gone. The future oppressor was identified - Babylon - whom the Jews would serve for almost a hundred years.
The reaction of the Jews to Jeremiah's message is all too predictable. They blamed the messenger, and did all they could to make him recant his prophecies. Who is this man? Has he forgotten what God did for us against the Egyptians? Or the Canaanites? The Philistines? Or even the Assyrians? Away with him! God had saved Israel so many times that the whole idea of abandoning the Chosen People seemed impossible.
And so poor Jeremiah was made to suffer, but did not change his message.
The Jews" contempt for God's prophet showed their unwillingness to give up their sins, and the prophecy came to pass. Even so, the loss of a national home, a condition for Jews which lasted until midway through the Twentieth century A.D., did not mean God's abandonment of His people. Another prophet, Ezekiel, was called specifically to minister to Jews taken into Babylonian captivity. They were eventually allowed to return to Jerusalem by the area's new masters, the Medes and Persians, but not as self-governing people, and not with so much as a "Welcome Back" sign at the Jerusalem gates.