Either,
1. Disposed it for the burning, i.e. laid it upon the altar where it was to be burnt by the heavenly fire, Leviticus 9:24. Thus interpreters generally understand the word here, as also Leviticus 9:13,17,20, by an anticipation; or the consequent is put for the antecedent, of which there are examples in Scripture. Or,
2. Properly burnt by ordinary fire, which was used and allowed until the fire came down from heaven, Leviticus 9:24, though afterwards it was forbidden. And if it had not been allowed otherwise, yet this being done by Aaron at the command of Moses, and consequently with God's approbation, it was unquestionably lawful. And therefore there seems to be no necessity of departing from the proper sense of the word. Add to this, that there is nothing said to be consumed by that heavenly fire, but the burnt-offering with the fat belonging to it, namely, that burnt-offering mentioned Leviticus 9:16, which therefore is not there said to be burnt, as it is said of the other burnt-offering, Leviticus 9:13, and of the rest of the sacrifices in their places.