Interesting perspective. Since I believe the OT was written expressly to presage Christ who was then fully revealed in the NT, I agree with your distinction.
"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." -- Isaiah 53:2-10"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." -- Hebrews 8:13
Not my idea but I have latched onto it as I think Dr Stallard is correct in his thesis. I really would encourage everyone who participates on this board to read Dr Stallards paper. He really does a great job of surveying both side (yes, he is a dispensationalist) and really highlights the fact that when a dispensationalist says "literal interpratation" and a non-dispensationalist says "literal interpreatation" they are talking about two different things.
The non-dispensationalist is likely to come away from the article with a more tempered view of dispensationalists ... and vice versa. He takes the time to quote many authors that the non-disp folks would appreciate (Ladd, Poythress, etc.)