In the phrase "the powers that be," as in the sentence:

It would never have occurred to the powers that be to run and supervise the National Lottery from anywhere but London.

(Oxford Dictionaries)

Why do we use "be", the infinitive form of the verb? Wouldn't "the powers that are" or "the powers that rule" make a lot more sense?

  • 2
    "That be" lends a sense of deity or royalty. – Hot Licks Jan 3 '16 at 21:10

To expand on Henry's answer: "The powers that be" is a set phrase quoted from Romans 13:1.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

In that context, it means "the temporal powers that indisputably do exist in the world," so we can rule out explanations that call on the subjunctive mood — here Paul isn't talking about "the powers that [may or may not] be", he's definitely talking about what we today would call "the powers that are."

So, why do archaic English sources use the form be where modern English would use are? Well, here are many partial answers all together in one place: Abbott's A Shakespearian Grammar quotes Richard III, act IV, scene 4:

Where is thy husband now? Where be thy brothers? Where are thy children?

Abbott suggests that Shakespeare (and also the King James translators, who were working in English at the same time as Shakespeare) preferred be to are for the plural indicative form basically because it sounded better on a case-by-case basis; with maybe an additional connotation of uncertainty.

So, as a rule, it will be found that be is used with some notion of doubt, question, thought, &c.; for instance (a) in questions, and (b) after verbs of thinking. [...]

Be is much more common with the plural than the singular. [...]

Be is also used to refer to a number of persons, considered not individually, but as a kind or class. [...]

But it cannot be denied that the desire of euphony or variety seems sometimes the only reason for the use of be [as opposed to] are.

— Abbott, A Shakespearian Grammar, "Auxiliary Verbs", sections 298–300.

Let's face it: "the powers that be" sounds much cooler than "the powers that are", and the guys who wrote the King James Version knew that just as well as you or I. :)

| improve this answer | |
  • Thanks for the link, it raises an interesting point about "be" apparently being used more often with plural subjects that I had never noticed or heard of before. – herisson Jan 4 '16 at 8:22
  • 1
    This answer convinces me the most. Thank you for posting. – Mari-Lou A Jan 4 '16 at 8:34
  • Is "be" grammatically correct, or is it like saying "Please give the papers to myself or John" as in it's not correct but sounds more formal/"cool"? – OldBunny2800 Jan 4 '16 at 21:53
  • 4
    It's easy to see why a translator who could have chosen either "be" or "are" would have chosen "the powers that be are" rather than "the powers that are are". A more modern translation might be "the authorities that exist", per the NIV. – Rein Henrichs Jan 5 '16 at 0:55
  • @ReinHenrichs -- in fact, most translators opt either to express it as a negative, "no authority exists without", or just reuse the original "powers that be" phrase from 1611. – Malvolio Jan 15 '16 at 19:56

"The powers that be" is a set phrase drawn from early translations of the Bible into English (Tyndale, Geneva, KJV etc.), in particular Romans 13:1.

So its grammar (subjunctive) reflects the usage of the time, and even then might have been slightly archaic.

| improve this answer | |
  • 5
    Interesting info, but your answer doesn't fully answer the question. Why the subjunctive here? – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jan 3 '16 at 23:29
  • 10
    @OldBunny2800 It's technically incorrect by modern English grammar, but since it's an idiom now not even its grammar has to make sense, since modifying it, even to fix the grammar, would break the idiomaticness of it. – Ryan Polley Jan 3 '16 at 23:30
  • 4
    @OldBunny2800: Yes, the Epistle to the Romans is part of the New Testament. (Google would have told you that, too.) – Nate Eldredge Jan 3 '16 at 23:59
  • 4
    @Araucaria: because that is how certain people wrote English in the 16th century, translating a present participle from Greek that might be read more literally as something like "authorities in being". I have no idea of the exact nuance: perhaps it suggests not just the Roman authorities at the moment Paul was writing in the 1st century but also those that later came into existence. – Henry Jan 4 '16 at 0:12
  • 12
    I think the nuance is that it is an implied hypothetical: "whatever powers there might happen to be at the time". – Colin Fine Jan 4 '16 at 1:02

The phrase "the powers that be" doesn't employ the subjunctive mood. The phrase comes from the New Testament (Romans 13:1) and uses be instead of are as an archaic alternative to the present indicative tense, not as an expression of the present subjunctive mood.

This is explained explicitly in regard to this very phrase in the following Wikipedia article:


| improve this answer | |
  • I went ahead and included the link above. Sorry, it took me a couple minutes to find it. I had actually read several articles on the subjunctive, so I was having trouble figuring out which it was from my internet history. – Benjamin Harman Jan 4 '16 at 12:39
  • 2
    However, in this Wiki article, it does note "citation needed"... So it still doesn't explain anything. – Tim Ward Jan 4 '16 at 14:50
  • 2
    Ah, we have a Wiki hater. Well, if not for the fact that the way "powers that be" is used in Romans 13:1 makes applying the subjunctive mood patently incorrect grammatically and but for the fact that Shakespeare and others have used this archaic alternative to the present indicative "are", then I might agree with you. However, grammar precludes all other explanations here that call "be" subjunctive or "lexical" in this context, while historical usage in countless literary classics absolutely supports the Wiki explanation. So it does explain it entirely, for its the only explanation that fits. – Benjamin Harman Jan 4 '16 at 16:21
  • The Oxford English dictionary does provide a simlar example from the King James bible which it classifies as indicative, not subjunctive: "1611 Bible (King James) 2 Kings vi. 16 They that be with vs are moe then they that be with them." – herisson Sep 27 '17 at 15:30

This blog says that it's the archaic English subjunctive form. Which I guess we could translate into modern English as "Whatever powers there may be".

However, I think the in sense that most people use it, they don't mean it in the subjective sense (i.e. an expression with doubt), but rather the indicative "the anonymous authorities that are presently in control".

| improve this answer | |
  • 4
    If you read the actual quote from Romans, it doesn't make sense for it to be interpreted as subjunctive. – Ben Crowell Jan 6 '16 at 14:08

I think the be in this phrase might be the lexical be, which is mostly used in negative constructions now, but I understand was more widely used in centuries past.

In CGEL page 114 has info related to lexical be usage, including examples:

Lexical be

This is found with why + do and with if:


    i.a. Why don't you be more tolerant?

    i.b. Why doesn't he be more tolerant?

    ii.a. If you don't be quick you'll lose.

    ii.b. If he doesn't be quick he'll lose.

    iii.a. % If you be quick you'll win. -- (grammatical in some dialects only)
    iii.b. * If he be / bes quick he'll win. -- (ungrammatical)

Edit: Here is a construction with a positive lexical be. I think it's a modern novel that is set in earlier times:

"Be you friend or foe of the crown!" a voice called from a mounted shadow in the distance.

Edit I think I thought of another one, a commonly-used, if archaic, phrase: "Be that as it may [be]", meaning "as it is", or, "with things being what they are".

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Oh, sort of like "do be cautious"? – OldBunny2800 Jan 4 '16 at 3:53
  • 4
    What exactly does this so-called "lexical be" mean? How is it different from other "be"s? – curiousdannii Jan 4 '16 at 5:03
  • 2
    As I understand it, lexical be contrasts with copula be; the former indicates an inherent, fundamental state that does not change, while the latter just links a subject and predicate together. (Cf. Spanish "ser" vs "estar"). – chepner Jan 4 '16 at 5:12
  • 4
    This "lexical" verb form sounds like basically just the infinitive when used with the helping verb do, as in, "(Do you | Does he) know this man?" or "(Do you | Does he) be a friend of the Crown?". In all of these cases, it's (archaically or poetically, but not colloquially) permissible to rearrange the words, Romance-language-style: "(Know you | Knows he) this man?" and "(Be you | Be he) a friend of the Crown?". However, all this has nothing to do with the powers that be; that's just plain old indicative, as far as I know. – Quuxplusone Jan 4 '16 at 7:46
  • 4
    @curiousdannii it means a form of "be" that is not an auxiliary. Apart from whether this distinction is really useful being disputed by some (see pages.uoregon.edu/tpayne/UEG/…), it's irrelevant here as are can be a "lexical be" if anything can, so this utterly fails to answer the question. – Jon Hanna Jan 4 '16 at 10:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.