Some propose that Poti-Pherah and Asenath were
not pagan worshippers. Jamieson, Fausset and
Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, states:
"[Joseph's] naturalization was completed by this
alliance with a family of high distinction. On being
founded by an Arab colony, Poti-pherah, like
Jethro [father-in-law of Moses], priest of Midian,                      
might be a worshipper of the true God; and thus                        
Joseph, a pious man, will be freed from the charge
of marrying an idolatress for worldly ends."

This conclusion is not necessarily negated by 

pagan names. The Ryrie Study Bible comments: "In
order to 'Egyptianize' Joseph, Pharaoh gave him an
Egyptian name and an Egyptian wife. The meaning
of his Egyptian name is uncertain. Asenath means '
she belongs to Neith' ( a goddess of the Egyptians).
On is the city of Heliopolis, a center for the
worship of the sun god, Ra." Still, the fact that
Joseph's wife and his father-in-law were called by
such names does not prove that they were pagan
worshippers. Pharaoh gave Joseph an Egyptian
name which could, in some contexts, refer to an
Egyptian god (compare the Nelson Study Bible).
However, it is interesting that the Bible, apart from                        

this passage in Genesis 41, never uses this name to                        
refer to Joseph.

The New Student Bible comments: "Proud
Egyptians did not care for Hebrews. In order that                          
Joseph's ethnic past be erased as quickly as possible,
Pharaoh gave Joseph an Egyptian name and
married him into a prominent Egyptian 

Joseph gave his own sons Hebrew names, however,
a practice that suggests he maintained his own
identity."

In addition, Soncino points out that the Hebrew
word for "priest" in "priest of On," i.e., "kohen," can                     
also be translated as "ruler," as is the case in 2
Samuel 8:18. In that passage, the Authorized
Version says, "chief 

rulers," while the New King
James Bible says, "chief ministers." In any event,
the meaning in 2 Samuel 8:18 is clearly not one of
a religious function. Accordingly, Soncino suggests
as a possibility that in Genesis 41:45, Poti-Pherah

was not a "priest" of On, but a "ruler" of On.

Others feel strongly that Joseph's wife and father-inlaw                
were pagan worshippers at the time of Joseph's
marriage. If so, such a marriage would have been
against God's law. Abraham insisted that his son
Isaac would not marry 

a wife "from the daughters of
the Canaanites," but from his own family and
country (Genesis 24:3-4). Later, God specifically
prohibited the Israelites to "make a covenant with
the inhabitants of the land [of Canaan] where you
are going, lest it be a snare in your midst" (Exodus
34:12). He warned them not to "take of [an
idolater's] daughters for your sons, and his daughters
play the harlot with their gods and make your sons                 
play the harlot with their gods" (Exodus 34:16).

In this light, the following statements by the

Broadman Bible 

Commentary are quite interesting:

"The name given Joseph is an Egyptian one
probably meaning, 'the God speaks and he hears'...,
a pagan testimony to the reality of God in Joseph's
life. Potiphera is pure Egyptian, meaning 'he whom
Re gave,' and is essentially the same name as
Potiphar. Asenath means 'belonging to (goddess)
Neith.' Potiphera was priest of On, one of the most
influential offices in Egypt. Joseph married into one
of the most prominent priestly families in Egypt,
but they were nevertheless pagan. Isaac and Jacob
had secured wives from their own cultural
background. Joseph did the very thing which the
others sought to avoid. Could this deed possibly
have met with God's approval? The writer of the
Joseph story is silent, but that silence does not
necessarily mean assent... It does not appear to be
coincidence that the descendants of Joseph and
Asenath, the principal northern tribes of Ephraim
and Manasseh, were always addicted to idolatry.
The golden calves of Jeroboam I in North Israel
were based upon experiences during the flight from
Egypt (cf. Ex. 32:4 with 1 Kings 12:28). Thus the
silence of this section of Genesis is followed by the
judgment of history."

It is noteworthy that the modern descendants of
Ephraim and Manasseh are likewise steeped in
paganism and idolatry. Religious feasts such as
Christmas or Easter are being celebrated, which
have nothing to do with true Christianity, but
which are clearly derived from pagan worship. For
more information, please read our free booklet,
"Don't Keep Christmas." You may also want to read
the Editorial in Update #89, dated April 18, 2003,
titled, "Why We Don't Celebrate Easter."

Whether Asenath was a pagan idolatress or not, it
is clear that God never allowed His followers to
marry unbelievers. This is true today for Christians,
as it was always true in God's eyes -- since God does
not change. We read in 1 Corinthians 7:39 that a
marriage should be conducted "only in the Lord."
However, we are also told that a believing mate is
not to divorce from his or her unbelieving mate, if
the "unbelieving" mate is pleased to dwell with the
believer, and that their children are "holy," having
access to God (1 Corinthians 7:12-14). Ephraim
and Manasseh's descendants did not have to
become idolaters. They could have continued to
follow God. The same can be said about the
modern descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh.
God warns them today, through His Church, of
impending disaster. They COULD listen and
repent of their evil deeds, as the ancient Ninevites
did (compare the book of Jonah). The question is,
Will they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizraim        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GLCATdEfyw

http://blackhawk7ca.blog.com/2012/01/30/the-times-and-lifes-of-asen...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2048&versio...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%209&version=KJV

Isaiah 9:21

 ²¹Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh: and they together shall be against Judah. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.