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.
Prior to the time that began Jesus’s time of passion, He and the disciples had attracted an enormous following. There was no real perception of transgressions. There were tests but no condemnation from society.
Once Jesus revealed he would be given over to the unbelievers, his disciples were made aware that he would be made out to be a criminal. This was a sea change as to what was experienced before.
The swords were bought to present a deterrent because it was God’s will the disciples be protected after Jesus was taken.
The Temple Guards were ordered to arrest Jesus, not his followers. If they had engaged in an armed battle with the disciples, not only would the Sanhedrin be displeased but also the Roman governor. The swords, how ever many they thought there were, acted as a deterrent, especially as Jesus was willing to be taken so long as the disciples were left untouched.
The Temple Guards knew that once Jesus was delivered, they could later come back for the disciples. And after the Sabbath, that is exactly what they did. They came back for all followers of Jesus.