Replies

> “(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.

John 18:1-11
So Judas took a detachment of soldiers and some officers from the high priests and the Pharisees and went there with lanterns, torches, and weapons.
Then Jesus, knowing everything that was going to happen, went forward and asked them, “Who are you looking for?”
They answered him, “Jesus from Nazareth.”
Jesus told them, “I AM.” Judas, the man who betrayed him, was standing with them.
When Jesus told them, “I AM,” they backed away and fell to the ground.
So he asked them again, “Who are you looking for?”
They said, “Jesus from Nazareth.”
Jesus replied, “I told you that I am the one, so if you are looking for me, let these men go.”
This was to fulfill what he had said, “I did not lose a single one of those you gave me.”

This makes it pretty clear that Jesus could make a gang of armed men back off and fall to the ground with a word. He did not need the Apostles' swords for this purpose.

The purpose of the swords was to fulfill the prophecy that He would be "numbered with the transgressors." I don't think a gang of armed men, "soldiers and officers," would be seriously deterred by fishermen with two measly swords. Especially after Jesus healed the first one who was slashed, and then ordered Peter to put back the sword.