Ridderbos:"Not said that Christ paid price to God"

[arapahoepark]

I found this perusing through Ridderbos and am wondering what you make of it.
Isn't substitution premised on propitation of the Father's justice/wrath?

Finally, the question arises here again as to the sense in which one will have to understand this representation of the salvation accomplished by Christ as redemption. Time and again scholars of every sort have laid stress on the fact that it is nowhere said to whom the price is paid. The main consideration here for most of them is the idea, correct in itself, that one must not think of a kind of business transaction between Christ and God, of which believers would then be the stake. To this extent one can consider it significant that it is not said that Christ paid the price to God. Yet on the other side, one should take no less care to see that the objective character of what is here called “to redeem,” “ransom,” etc., is not compromised. One runs this risk, in our view, when it is posited that there is “no question here in fact of a case at law with God,” or that Paul gives no answer to questions as to the significance of the necessity and the possibility of such a legal case with God and that, for Paul, in the cross of Christ God is not the Recipient but the One who is acting. Altogether objectionable is the notion that Paul did not consider Christ as in reality burdened with the curse of God, but speaks in Galatians 3:13 from the legalistic standpoint that he himself had rejected; in Christ it would then (on this viewpoint) appear that the curse of the law is not the curse of God and in this way the idea that God deals with men on a legalistic basis would be carried ad absurdum. The deliverance from the curse of the law would then mean only “a release from a false conception of God’s attitude.”

A little later his says this but, isn't it contradictory?

Although it is not thus said that Christ redeems his own from God, yet God is the one whose holy curse is executed on Christ in their place. Justice is not thrust aside, but justice is satisfied. Although we meet with no word for “satisfaction” in Paul, the idea of substitutionary satisfaction is materially present here.