This is from variou conversations with Protestants and Orthodox.
It’s similar to when a human person dies. We say the person has died, yet what death entails is the separation/division between the physical and non-physical aspects of the human nature (soul and body). This is true of the Logos to the extent that what constitutes personhood is a union of a hypostasis with a nature. The same principle occurs at the creaturely level when the Logos assumes a created nature (human flesh) and gets crucified in that nature. We must say that the person has died, since his personhood is now qualified by a human nature in addition to His divine nature. And since nature is always enhypostatized, killing the nature constitutes the death of the person even while person continues to transcend nature.
All of this goes back to the dispute between Nestorius and Cyril on the Virgin Birth as well, with Nestorius arguing that God wasn’t born in the flesh since only the flesh was created in the womb. Many Calvinists apply Nestorius’ argument to the Cross, arguing that the Logos didn’t die, only the human nature. God WAS born ACCORDING TO THE HUMAN NATURE, and the Logos DID die ACCORDING TO THE HUMAN NATURE.
since personhood is always qualified by nature, death cannot occur for a person except insofar as it involves the destruction of the union that once subsisted between the person and his/her nature.
What’s happening is they conflate nature and person in the divinity, but they separate them according to the humanity of Christ, and the unconscious assumption here seems to be that uncreated divinity and created humanity are incompatible entities. To argue that the Logos has died is (for them) to argue that the divine nature has expired. But divine personhood isn’t the same as the divine nature; it’s the same thing _______ couldn’t wrap his brain around. So what you’re left with are two natures (created and uncreated) existing in a kind of covenantal or legal union, rather than in a true, metaphysical union.