I think you're asking why before is used to denote the past whereas fore is used, in the spatial referential to denote what is ahead of the observer (cf. forward, afore...).
Indeed, a possible reasoning would be that, according to the walking observer metaphor, one would expect to use behind to denote the past and possibly before to refer to the future.
There is another way of considering things though: that of the ancestral tracker reading his prey's track. In the remote past such an ability was central to a man's life and the spatial/temporal parallel was even more compelling than nowadays.
If you take the tracker's viewpoint the portion of the track immediately in front of him has been made before and the portion further off has been made after.
This is actually the etymology of after. In Old English æfter is a comparative (-ter) of of which at the time meant "away". We still use this sense of "away" in what used to be the emphatic form off. So the original meaning of after is not "in the future" but rather "further away". It came to mean mainly "in the future" only later and was displaced by further in its spatial reference usage.
The be (in before, below, beyond, behind) is the ancestor of "by" (it was often written bi- as well) just as in Present Day German "bei" and is originally a spatial reference to oneself (as in close by, nearby).
So similarly, the original meaning be-fore (OE beforan) simply meant "ahead".
We use a similar metaphor when we use next to mean "immediately after" ("what's next?") while the original meaning ("close by") is spatial (PDE nächste: in der Nähe - nearby).
Finally, as you rightly observe, this situation is seen in many languages.
Another example to add to your collection is Latin ante which originally meant in front of (like ἀντὶ also "in front" in Ancient Greek) and came down to us in Spanish as both antes/enantes "before" and adelante "forward" as well as in French avant (both "before" and "ahead") but also counts among its derivatives anterior or antique.