In Devarim, 32:48, the pasuk uses the phrase בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה (on that very day). Rashi there comments
בשלשה מקומות נאמר בעצם היום הזה,
(: Heb. בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. In three places Scripture employs the phrase: בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה [which has the meaning, “at the strongest light of the day”].)
[text and translation from here.]
Rashi then goes to explain the 3 uses: Bereishit 7:13 (Noach entering the teivah), Shemot 12:51 (the Exodus), and the Devarim quote, Moshe's death. In each case the point is that Hashem ensured that the event took place at that time, over the objections of others.
This website points out that Rashi, in his count ignores Bereisht 17:23 (and 26). The meaning there apparently does not indicate any objection that Hashem had to overcome. Rashi's commentary has to do with the specific day and Avraham's circumcising despite the challenges of others,
On the very day that he was commanded (Mid. Ps. 112:2), during the day and not at night. He was afraid neither of the heathens nor of the scorners. [He circumcised in the light of day] so that his enemies and his contemporaries would not say,“Had we seen him, we would not have allowed him to circumcise and to fulfill the commandment of the Omnipresent” (Gen. Rabbah 47:9).
and later (17:26) simply an indicator of a particular day,
when Abraham reached the age of ninety-nine and Ishmael [reached the age of] thirteen,“Abraham was circumcised, and [so was] Ishmael his son.”
But there are also other uses of the phrase. In Vayikra 23, the phrase is used 4 times (21, 28, 29, 30) regarding the cessation of work on Shavu'ot and Yom Kippur and the self affliction on Yom Kippur.
While one could also say that these uses don't conform to the explanation Rashi gives so he doesn't include them, doesn't their existence indicate that Rashi's explanation is wrong? He identifies three uses and says that the uses point to the phrase's meaning, but ignores that the phrase is used 6 other times where its use DOESN'T point to that explanation. He draws a conclusion from an intentionally selective sample almost as if his conclusion came first (that the phrase had to mean something) so he only chose citations which support that conclusion.
Is there any explanation to Rashi's selective comments and his excluding examples when coming to a decision about the significance of the phrase? If the phrase more often DOESN'T mean "over the objections of others" why insert that understanding at all? Why not just say that the phrase means what it says -- precisely on that day?