Exegesis of a term or concept in one book of the Bible does not mean that we should ignore what the Bible writers say on that same topic - but not in that same book.
In any case "Commandments of God" in 1 John 5:2 and Rev 14:12 is a term used by the same author - and in Eph 6:1-2 we find out what the "first commandment with a promise" is in that thing the Bible calls "the commandments of God" - as Christ Himself reminds us in Matt 19
Note that the study of part of Sacred Scripture, such as a verse, chapter, book, or entire section of books, in isolation, is not exegesis, but eisegesis.
Proper exegesis takes into account, to the best of the exegete’s ability, the entirety of Scripture. When it comes to the interpretation of scripture, I agree with the fourth and fifth century Church Fathers Hilary of Potiers and Vincent of Lerins, that Scripture is in the Interpretation and not the reading, and that consistency with the Apostolic tradition, “that which has been believed always, everywhere, and by everyone can properly be called Catholic,” where Catholic is used in the sense of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church we confess in the Nicene Creed, which is to say the universal church of all the faithful. And because even careful exegetes can still draw spectacularly wrong conclusions simply by misunderstanding or misinterpreting a verse, such as happened with the Millerites and the Great Disappointment, I mainly trust the exegesis of the Early Church Fathers, who were closest to the Apostles, who edited the New Testament (especially St. Athanasius) and defended the doctrine of the Holy Trinity against the efforts of the Roman Empire, and later the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, to suppress it, replacing authentic Christianity with the counterfeit that was Arianism.
Other than them, John Wesley, and Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky are the only recent exegetes whose work strikes me as trustworthy. I also think Karl Barth, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin did a very thorough job of exegesis, which in the case of Aquinas is almost but not entirely in accord with the Patristic exegetes, whereas I think Calvin, particularly in his second edition of his Institutes made some errors, but I am defining errors as divergence from the teachings of the early church fathers, which to his credit Calvin was trying to follow (the Latin term
consensus patrum is of Calvinist origin), but he did not have enough information and also seriously misjudged the Eastern churches due to iconoclasm on his part, which denied him access to many of the Greek and Syrian Fathers, resulting in both himself and also Aquinas relying too heavily on Augustine, and worse than Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury.
