Maybe its not the end yet. I got a reply from the pastor about the commentaries he used and two excerpts. We can continue the discussion if anyone wants to comment. Right now I don't have the time to comment but definitely feel that there is some speculation in what is said.

The commentaries are
(a) Word Biblical Commentary and
(b) Acts: a Bible commentary in the Wesleyan tradition.

Here are the excerpts he sent:

Quote
The Sadducees of the first century represented the “conservative” viewpoint. They rejected the oral traditions of the Pharisees and considered only the written Torah of the Pentateuch as valid. They considered the concepts of demons and angels, immortality and resurrection as innovations, believing in no life beyond this life. More important than their theology, however, was their political orientation. Coming largely from the landed aristocracy, they were accommodationists with regard to the Roman occupation of Israel. Possessing considerable economic interests, their concern was to make peace with the Romans, preserve the status quo, and thus protect their own holdings. In return the Romans accorded the Sadducees considerable power, invariably appointing the high priest from their ranks, who was the most powerful political figure among the Jews in that day. The prime concern of the Sadducean aristocracy, of whom the high priest was the chief spokesman, was the preservation of order, the avoidance at all costs of any confrontation with the Roman authorities.

Polhill, J. B. (1992). Acts (Vol. 26, p. 139). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.


Acts 4:2: They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.

The Sadducees’ annoyance at Peter and John’s witness to the resurrection was not so much theological as political, as was generally the case with the Sadducees. Note the wording in v. 2: not “they were proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus” but “they were proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.” The idea of a general resurrection was an apocalyptic concept with all sorts of messianic overtones. Messianic ideas among the Jews of that day meant revolt, overthrow of the foreign overlords, and restoration of the Davidic kingdom. There had been such movements before (cf. 5:36–37), and the Romans had put them down. There would be many more in the future. In fact, the worst fears of the Sadducees were indeed realized when war broke out with the Romans in a.d. 66, with terrible consequences for the Jews. Here, with the large crowds surrounding Peter and John, their fears were aroused. The notes of Peter’s sermon alarmed them: resurrection, Author of life, a new Moses. These were revolutionary ideas. The movement must not spread. It must be nipped in the bud.

Polhill, J. B. (1992). Acts (Vol. 26, pp. 139–140). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.


What other factors led the religious leaders away from receiving Peter’s message? They did not believe in any resurrection from the dead (see Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8). Thus, the resurrection of Jesus, a central theme of Peter’s sermon, would have pushed their theological hot buttons.
But, on this day, politics may have weighed more than theology. These religious leaders were Sadducees. The leading Sadducees formed the core of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish body to which the Romans gave limited power of government over Judea. The Sanhedrin could retain its power only as long as it served the Romans by maintaining peace. In Palestine, this was not an easy job. The Jews were living in a window of peace between a period of bloody uprisings ending about 30 b.c., and a rebellion which led to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in a.d.70. The Sanhedrin sought to quell any movement of the people that might develop into a threat to the status quo.

Bence, P. A. (1998). Acts: a Bible commentary in the Wesleyan tradition (p. 57). Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House.