There is no evidence in the NT that the temple guards arrested only Jesus because of armed resistance by the rest of the Apostles with those two swords. That is speculation, and it tends to be disproved by two things:
(1) The *one* time that *one* of two words was actually used, was when Peter cut off the ear of the servant of the High Priest. It was then that Jesus reached out and miraculously healed the man's ear. This illustrates that Jesus not only forbade, but counteracted this defense.
(2) Neither the NT nor any of the history of the Church for the first 300 years of Christianity shows Christians protecting themselves with armed force. Despite the fact that they and their families were in peril of their lives, there is no record of armed resistance.
If you have any historical sources which contradict this, I would be sincerely interested in hearing about it. I favor evidence-based discussion, and I am fully open to be persuaded by evidence.
`
> “(1) The *one* time that *one* of two words was actually used, was when Peter cut off the ear of the servant of the High Priest. It was then that Jesus reached out and miraculously healed the man’s ear. This illustrates that Jesus not only forbade, but counteracted this defense.”
...but counteracted this ***defense***
Be careful. Peter did not strike in ‘defense’ which is why Jesus intervened and rebuked.
But the incident served its purpose which was to put the Temple Guards on warning. After the incident they were more agreeable to take Jesus only and leave the others.