We have a difference in interpretation.
> “He did not need the Apostles’ swords for this purpose.”
I agree, but the disciples needed them.
> “The purpose of the swords was to fulfill the prophecy that He would be “numbered with the transgressors.”
That’s your opinion. My opinion is the same as that handed down to countless millions, that Jesus was numbered with the transgressors because they hung crucified and died on either side of him on at Calvary.
Jesus was not sentenced to death for causing his disciples to carry swords, he was convicted for speaking of a kingdom (possible treason), and even then, Pilate deferred to a Jewish mob to choose between Jesus or Barrabas. Pilate ruled Jesus had done no wrong and left it to a Jewish mob organized by enemies (a Jewish deep state) in the Sanhedrin. Pilate acceded to the Sanhedrin that they had no King but Caesar. Pilate washed his hands of it.
> “I don’t think a gang of armed men, “soldiers and officers,” would be seriously deterred by fishermen with two measly swords.”
The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto held off the German Army for two weeks with 15 pistols.
> “Especially after Jesus healed the first one who was slashed, and then ordered Peter to put back the sword.”
Which doesn’t mesh with your prior statement that Temple Guards would not be deterred. Peter’s action, in fact, did deter them for otherwise the Temple Guards would have attacked and arrested all the disciples.
Throughout the Bible, God has caused the enemies of Israel, who were tasked to remain obedient to God as they were chosen to bring forth the Messiah, to be defeated in myriad ways. It is clear that God does not restrict Himself from waging wars to protect the coming of the Messiah through the nation of Israel, and similarly that He would protect the Apostles who were tasked with spreading the Gospel. That protection included the sword where God deemed it was appropriate.
Satan’s minions can be stopped with the gun and sword, and all manner of armaments. My belief is that GOD protects this nation with the most awful weapons of war such that no enemy nation would even think to attack the United States. Although some missives of Jihadists and other enemies will plot to attack, they cannot defeat the US through armies and equipment, only a formidable enemy nation could imagine defeating the United States militarily and to this day none would think of it.
Really I'm not!
I'm just pointing out that the swords mentioned in the Gospel are never USED for anything (except for cutting off Malchus' ear, which Jesus immediately counteracts and countermands.) Their only other "use" is that they help establish that Jesus is "numbered among transgressors," as prophesied.
That fact that His men carry (a few measly) arms, helps set up the pretext for Jesus to be accused of being a rebel and a rival to the Emperor.
This results in treating Him as a transgressor in the subsequent chapters: binding Him, bringing him to trial before the religious and secular authorities, having Him scourged and beaten, and finally, of course, having Him killed. In all these ways He was treated as a transgressor, and the swords were part of the (flimsy) pretext for doing that.