No, this has nothing to do with anything simple. It is awfully overengineered. It is definitely not a way do implement DSLs.
Macros are over engineered in comparison since they force the developer to learn a whole new section of the language with its own rules and own compilation lifecycle.
This is why hardly anyone uses macros these days and why most language are embracing the Groovy/Kotlin approach to writing DSL's.
Simplicity of the building blocks does not affect complexity of the resulting mess of code.
Look, Brainfuck have only 8 operators. It cannot get much simpler than that. Once you learn all 8 operators no new constructs require any learning. Does it help at all? No. You're stuck at a pathetic abstraction level.
Same with your functions. They're limiting your abstraction level, therefore making it impossible to make things simple. And your DSL example shows it in quite a dramatic way - it is a horrible mess and nothing but a horrible mess. It can be somewhat handy for the users, but the implementation is plain awful.
For example, this one: http://www.moserware.com/2008/04/towards-moores-law-software...
Or Nanopass itself, not just as a tool for building DSLs, but as an example of a nice and clean DSL (of course, if it could bootstrap itself it would have been even better):
https://github.com/akeep/nanopass-framework
Or everything you can find in my github repositories (username: combinatorylogic).
The small amount of time it takes to learn Clojure and get used to its syntax is well worth it. Too bad not many workplaces are willing to similarly switch from Groovy to Clojure for writing tests. They even stick with the older Groovy version 1.8. Once something works, they won't upgrade.